Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, a range of issues arise under that, particularly concerning the eighth directive, which relates to auditing. Most of that directive is already included in UK provisions, and consultation on the residual issues should start next year. There are other issues to which accounting standards apply, and there is discussion with the US and UK authorities about convergence on those issues as well. There is a range of issues to consider.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, noble Lords would not expect me to comment on individual cases that have been the subject of some discussion in the House in recent times. The noble Lord will be aware that an extradition request is considered by the courts under the Extradition Act 2003, which contains full safeguards for defendants; and that, as defined by the Extradition Act, for the US to make an extradition request to the UK for an offence in which no conduct took place in the US, it will also have to be an extraterritorial offence under UK law. I understand that the US is moving towards ratification of that treaty.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the picture at post-16 is not quite as straightforward as the noble Baroness suggests. She is absolutely right that the numbers studying the three sciences to A-level have declined, but the numbers studying at AS level have risen quite substantially. Between 2001 and 2006, the number studying biology at AS level has risen from 51,000 to 59,000; the number studying chemistry at AS level has risen from 35,000 to 41,000; and the number studying physics at AS level has also risen, although only marginally, from 29,174 to 29,659. The issue is in part one of progression from GCSE to AS, and the results of the pilot have been encouraging. However, the issue also—in some ways, more substantially for the immediate future of getting more pupils up to A-level—is to encourage those who start on the AS course to continue into the second year of sixth form to take the A2.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
	When we debated this matter in Committee, the Minister assured us that all secondary schools must provide sex and relationship education as part of the basic science curriculum—it is therefore a statutory requirement. He repeated that statement in the letter that he sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on 11 October. In that letter, he also raised concerns that, if PSHE were to be made a statutory part of the curriculum, it would raise intense debate and controversy among other subject champions who want their subjects to be made statutory and compulsory up to 16.
	Danger of an intense debate is not a good reason not to do the right thing. However, the Minister was right that there is an intense debate, not least in yesterday's newspapers, and there was an intense debate in your Lordships' House, in which this argument were supported by Peers from all sides of the Chamber. Today's amendments, which were so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on that occasion, are supported by the Advisory Centre for Education, Barnardo's, the British Medical Association, the Family Planning Association, Brook, the Drug Education Forum, the National AIDS Trust, the National Union of Students, the NSPCC, UNICEF UK, Parentline Plus, Tacade, the Terence Higgins Trust, Womankind and the YWCA, to mention just a few in the long list of supporters. Only yesterday, the IPPR published a new report based on detailed research, the conclusion of which was that PSHE, including sex and relationship education, should become a statutory subject in all primary and secondary schools in England and Wales. It also called for more information on parenting and childcare to be offered at all extended schools, and I agree with it on that.
	The evidence for concluding that the status quo, in which the subject is non-statutory, is failing comes from a number of facts. First, Britain has the highest rate of births to teenagers in Europe; the rate here is nearly one-fifth higher than that in Latvia, which is the second country in the list. The Government's claim that the rate is falling refers to only a very tiny fall. Secondly, one in three 15 year-olds did not use a condom during their last sexual intercourse. Thirdly, levels of genital diseases—chlamydia, genital herpes and syphilis—among British teenagers have increased greatly in the past 10 years. Fourthly, over the past50 years, the average age of first sexual intercourse fell from 20 for men and 21 for women in the 1950s to16 by the mid-1990s. The proportion of young people who are sexually active before the age of consent rose from less than 1 per cent to 25 per cent in the same period. Fifthly, in 2001-02, 38 per cent of the UK's15 year-olds had sexual intercourse—that is the highest incidence in Europe, as far as we can tell.
	Julia Margo, who is a senior research fellow at the IPPR concluded that:
	"our education system must respond and start teaching children about the risks involved in sex before they even consider taking those risks".
	PSHE is not just about sex education; it is about a great deal more than that. The QCA describe it as,
	"giving children and young people the knowledge, skills and understanding they need to lead confident, healthy and independent lives. It aims to help them understand how they are developing personally and socially and how to develop the skills and positive attitudes needed to tackle many of the moral, social and cultural issues that are part of growing up".
	So I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it is about a great deal more than sex—it is about life skills. In a nutshell, that is what he is concerned about. But no doubt we will hear more in a moment.
	Research and surveys have shown that children and their parents want PSHE taught in schools. The Government have made it clear that they believe that emotional and social skills are fundamental to school improvement, improving behaviour and attendance at school. So why will they not show that commitment by making PSHE compulsory? PSHE provides the right vehicle for delivering the Government's agenda—the Every Child Matters outcomes for children. Typically, it has been seen to be driven by problems such as teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, smoking or obesity, which need to be solved.
	At best PSHE is well co-ordinated in the school, but at worst it can be a number of topics that jostle with one another for time in the curriculum. That is not surprising, because the aspects of learning and development in PSHE are not joined up at national level. Currently, we have SEAL, or social and emotional aspects of learning, for primary schools, with SEBS, or social, emotional and behavioural skills, being piloted in secondary schools. The DfES delivers those. Some elements of drug education come from the Home Office and the healthy schools initiative comes from the Department of Health.
	If PSHE were used as a framework through which these different initiatives were delivered, it would provide coherence for schools. Currently, the Government acknowledge that PSHE needs improvements but do not accept that making it statutory would make schools and teacher/trainers take it more seriously. Instead, they have chosen various levers that they hope will drive up standards. I have a number of questions for the Minister about these.
	Through the new inspection arrangements, the Government believe that PSHE will be better inspected and that that will drive up standards. But the new inspection regime is very short and, unless the Government are explicit that PSHE is the main vehicle for achieving the Every Child Matters outcomes, it is unlikely that inspection will have much impact. In addition, few Ofsted inspectors are PSHE specialists. Those schools that are good academically will get a good Ofsted report anyway, even if their PSHE is diabolical. Will the Minister commit to commissioning Ofsted to deliver a special thematic report on PSHE?
	Secondly, PSHE is now in the initial teacher training curriculum. However, the curriculum is so packed that I understand that in some cases only an hour is dedicated to the subject. Therefore, training has to come through continued professional development. The continuous professional development programme aims to train only 2,000 teachers and nurses a year in PSHE. As there are over 20,000 schools, it will take many years before every school has at least one trained teacher. Will the DfES work with the Training and Development Agency for Schools and others to improve the training of newly qualified teachers in PSHE?
	The QCA produced good end of key stage statements in 2005. It is currently reviewing the whole curriculum, including PSHE. Will the Minister consider asking the QCA to develop PSHE within the framework of the five outcomes for children so that it is the main vehicle for their delivery by schools?
	All schools should be healthy schools by 2008—I believe that that is the target. However, there are still many thousands of schools which are still to convert to that status. Making PSHE statutory would help to ensure that all schools become healthy schools sooner. What sanctions will apply or, preferably, support be given to schools with poor PSHE provision, regardless of the academic attainment of the pupils, so that they can all become healthy schools sooner?
	Finally, I challenge the Government's basic premise that aspects of PSHE, such as sex and drug education, are already statutory because they are covered in biology or science lessons. As a former biology teacher and form tutor delivering PSHE, I tell the Minister that the ethos of a biology lesson, where there is a curriculum to be examined in a public examination, and the ethos of a PSHE lesson, where young people are encouraged to discuss and explore difficult issues, are totally different. It is not possible to work on the important relationship aspects of the subject in science lessons.
	PSHE is vital alongside the more factual work. We need both and we need every child to receive both. PSHE covers the emotional and social aspects, enabling children to move beyond the facts to develop lifelong skills and positive attitudes. That being so important, if the Government still resist the call of so many in this Chamber and beyond to ensure that all children receive good-quality PSHE as of right, how will the department evaluate the use of the levers, which I have just described, that they propose to use and over what period will that be done? Will we still be in the terrible position described by the list of statistics that I gave earlier, which were published by the IPPR only this weekend? I beg to move.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 91A and 91B and shall speak to Amendment No. 92. Unfortunately, I was unable to be in my place when the noble Baroness moved her amendment in Committee, as I was chairing a conference on the implementation of the Every Child Matters programme in my county of Kent. In spirit, I supported the amendment; I wrote to the Minister about it and received a very helpful reply, for which I am most grateful.
	I have carefully read the Official Report of the debate. Somehow, it seems to have been entirely hijacked by sex education and health education. I admit that sex education and health education are probably much more fun than what I am going to talk about, which I believe to be another very important aspect of personal, social and health education.
	When she opened the debate in Committee, the noble Baroness pointed out that the non-compulsory elements of PSHE are being crowded out of the curriculum by other compulsory subjects—especially, of course, those that will improve the school's position in the dreaded league tables. I remember—was it 10 or 12 years ago?—with what high hopes we fought to get PSHE into the syllabus. It is sad that it is still not being well delivered in schools. I strongly support the Government policy to train more PSHE teachers, but that will not solve the problem if the non-compulsory elements of PSHE are crowded out of the work programme, especially in the most vulnerable schools.
	If, on reflection, the Minister is prepared to accept Amendments Nos. 91A and 91B, I shall be very content. If not, perhaps my amendment, Amendment No. 92, may suggest a basis for compromise or a different way to look at the problem. If accepted, it would ensure that personal and social life skills would have to be taught and learnt in all schools, at least in key stage 4. I must admit that it would be better still if they had to be learnt in all key stages, because those skills should start to be learnt early and developed throughout the child's life at school—and before. I am sorry that I did not frame my amendment to give effect to that; I may do so at the next stage of the Bill if that becomes relevant.
	Personal and social life skills and education are important because they are essential in the workplace and in the family. In short, social education is about the skills that one needs to get on with other people, and personal education is about the skills that one needs to get on with oneself. A child's ability to be comfortable in their own skin is fundamental to success in school and in later life. It is vital to develop enough self-esteem and communication skills to be able to listen, to express oneself, to negotiate, to resolve conflict, and to establish and sustain effective and positive relationships with adults and within peer groups, as these are the most crucial skills of all in life, whether in the workplace, the family or elsewhere. Most children start to learn these skills very early on in the family but, for those who are not so lucky, it is crucial that the school is ready to move in and fill the gap.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has given several examples of what is going on at present. Research shows that, in most disadvantaged families today, verbal and social ability has deteriorated since 1999—a statistic that the noble Baroness did not give us. In her studies on child health, Professor Stewart-Brown has shown that relationships in the home during childhood are a determinant of mental and physical health in childhood and in adult life, and that this effect is independent of socio-economic factors. That also applies to relationships at school. The National Autistic Society has told me that it surveyed 35,000 parents, almost all of whom put better teaching in personal and social education first in meeting the needs of autistic children.
	Family breakdown, domestic violence, anti-social behaviour, school failure and bullying at school can be traced back in many cases to poor communication and negotiation skills. It is at least arguable that, for the most disadvantaged children in our society, better interpersonal and communication skills are the key that could unlock the prison of exclusion, frustration and hopelessness.
	In his amendment to Clause 6, the Minister has introduced a duty on local authorities to provide or procure out-of-school activities for all young people. I welcome this proposal. Out-of-school activities are an excellent way of developing self-confidence and teaching personal and social skills, but they should be additional to, not instead of, an obligation on all schools to provide effective PSHE, especially to the most disadvantaged. Unless someone is obliged to deliver this subject, some of the most vulnerable children will fall through the net.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 91A and 91B on the need to make PSHE statutory in the national curriculum. I have lobbied the Minister from the first day he arrived in your Lordships' House. I appreciate his commitment to the subject, as well as the developments that have been made since this matter has been his responsibility. Those developments include the Teacher's handbook, the guidelines for the 12 subjects that make up PSHE, and the establishment of the first PSHE subject association—an association for teachers of PSHE to share examples of good practice and to promote PSHE through the healthy schools initiative. We should also appreciate that 5,000 teachers have benefited from the PSHE certification programme, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, that is nowhere near enough. Teachers must have far more understanding of the importance of PSHE teaching. I cite one example to justify that point. I recently asked a headmaster of a boys' school in London about the PSHE programme in his school. He replied that the school did not need PSHE teaching because it was a boys' school. I do not understand that logic, but the idea is all too prevalent that subjects such as this mean that we are talking only about girls, but of course we are not; we are talking about the need for boys, too, to have that training.
	I want to give three definitions from Government documents that support the case that we are all making. I make no apology for quoting back to the Government some of the things that they have said. The Teacher's handbook defines PSHE as,
	"a planned programme of teaching and learning that promotes pupils' personal and social development, their health and well-being. It helps to give children and young people the knowledge, skills and understanding they need to lead confident, healthy and independent lives. It ... helps them understand how they are developing personally and socially, tackling many of the moral, social and cultural issues that are part of growing up".
	On the national curriculum, the Government state that the aim of the school curriculum is to,
	"promote pupils' spiritual, moral social and cultural development and prepare all pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life".
	Finally, the Teacher's handbook also states:
	"Effective sex and relationship education is essential"—
	I repeat, "essential"—
	"if young people are to make responsible and well informed decisions about their lives. A successful programme will help young people learn to respect themselves and others, and move confidently from childhood though adolescence and into adulthood".
	If we were to take those words as they are written, there would be no need for this argument, because the Government have presented their own case for making the subject statutory. If those aspirations had become reality, we would see better pupil behaviour, attendance and attainment, a reduction in bullying, improved levels of physical and mental health, a greater ability to stay safe, a decrease in early sex and a reduction in teenage pregnancy, which are all values to which the Government are committed.
	This morning, I spoke at a conference on teenage pregnancy. There was a speaker from Gateshead, where the level of teenage pregnancy has declined quite substantially. The speaker said that one of the main reasons for its decline was that children are taught PSHE and SRE in their schools. Again, there is no better case for the argument that we are making.
	In Committee, the Minister said that many aspects of PSHE are already statutory, such as SRE and drug guidance, and that a number of requirements on schools support PSHE, such as policies on bullying and child protection. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and say politely to my noble friend that that is a rather disingenuous argument: only elements of SRE and drug education are a part of the statutory science curriculum. The teaching is too biological and infrequent and it completely ignores the relationships and emotions that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, so clearly identified. I refer again to the teenage pregnancy argument from the "deep dive" activity, which confirmed that in all those areas where there is effective teaching there is a reduction in the level of teenage pregnancy. Similarly, evidence from Stonewall shows that the answer to homophobic bullying in schools is effective and statutory PSHE in all our schools, thus enabling young people to discuss the different relationships and families that are reflective of the world in which we live.
	My noble friend also said in Committee that this is not a straightforward issue, which is true. The current complexity means that there is confusion and nervousness among teachers on what they can legitimately teach, what is statutory and what is optional. I hope that my noble friend will agree that, surely, the answer is to make PSHE in its entirety a statutory subject; if that is done, you get over that complexity and confusion.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, cited a number of organisations that have supported this demand. I should like to mention one or two more: the Catholic Education Service, the Church of England Board of Education, Mencap, the Methodist Church, the Mothers' Union, the Parenting Forum, Relate, the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy and the organisation that I chair, the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV.
	I understand that there are many other demands to make subjects statutory, which of course must cause a dilemma for the Government. But I challenge my noble friend to identify any other subject where the demand is greater and the breadth of the organisations making that demand is as wide as it is on this subject. I do not believe that the Government's argument is sufficient. I sincerely believe that while PSHE remains a non-statutory part of the curriculum and while there are an inadequate number of trained staff—be it teachers or school nurses—the teaching of PSHE will remain patchy, with a continuation of bullying and risky behaviour, and a lack of respect of pupils to one another, so that the best intentions of the Government will be lost.
	Finally, we need to learn from the experience of European countries that have overcome many of the problems that we face. The difference is that those countries are characterised by an open attitude towards discussing sex and relationships; they have comprehensive sex and relationship education in all their schools and there is easy access to the sexual health services and advice that are required. A part of what I have quoted has come from a government document about learning from Europe. I quote the Government's words back to them and ask: when is it all going to happen?

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I support AmendmentNo. 91A and agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Terrence Higgins Trust and as an ambassador for the National AIDS Trust.
	Twenty years ago I launched a campaign on HIV/AIDS. Our message was basically, "Don't die of ignorance". We used television advertising, posters and we sent a leaflet to every household in the country. Among some it was regarded as controversial. I remember meeting the Chief Rabbi, who complimented me on the urgency of the campaign but set out no fewer than 14 different reasons why he opposed it. One of his arguments was that it encouraged promiscuity by introducing children and young people to ideas of sex entirely unknown to them. I did not agree with that argument. Indeed, I think effective prevention is—or should be—one of the goals of any government. As it happened, we were not flooded with a vast number of complaints after the campaign—in fact we had very few indeed—but the figures showed that knowledge increased very radically and infection went down at the same time, not only HIV/AIDS infection but sexually transmitted diseases generally.
	However, 20 years on, I am concerned by just how much those lessons have been forgotten. If you ran a commercial company and conducted a major advertising campaign, and then went off the air for the next 20 years, everyone would think you were fairly eccentric. But that is exactly what has happened; there has been no effective follow up. Because of medical advances, young people may not now be dying of ignorance, but certainly they are continuing to suffer in increasing numbers because of ignorance. That is basically why I support the amendment.
	The degree of ignorance in this country is of enormous concern to anyone who has looked at this issue. The European survey carried out for the European Commission, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred, showed startling ignorance about how HIV/AIDS is spread and a startling avoidance of some of the most obvious methods of preventing it. It is a sad truth that for most young people today television, the media, playground gossip and rumours are their primary source of important information about issues such as pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and HIV. And yet countless surveys in this country have shown that young people would like to see taught—and better taught than it is—much more sex and relationship education. As we have been told, some aspects of sex and relationship education are currently taught as part of the biology curriculum, but we also know that maintaining good sexual health involves far more than an understanding of basic biology.
	Currently, I think that provision is extraordinarily patchy. Some schools teach good-quality sex and relationship education, in others it is poor quality and some do not teach it at all. It should not be left to individual schools to make the decision or to make the case for it. It is quite a difficult case to make locally, where it does not necessarily come at the top of people's priorities. Therefore, it is a responsibility directly upon Government to make that case nationally and locally. I should like to see the Government—this one or whichever one follows—face up to the challenge.
	There is an excellent document on the website of the Department for International Development entitled Talking about Health, Sex and Pregnancy. It sets out the department's approach to promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights in developing countries, and says:
	"People need the knowledge and skills to make choices and safe decisions about their sex lives. Sex education does not increase the number of sexual partners among young people. In fact, it helps them make safer choices, including delaying first sex, and reducing the number of sexual partners they have".
	To support and fund good-quality personal, social and health education around the world, as it clearly helps young people to make sensible, safer choices to protect their own well-being, is an eminently sensible approach. It seems reasonable to ask the Government to show the same concern for young people in the United Kingdom and to ensure that all our young people get high-quality personal, social and health education as part of the national curriculum.
	This is a vastly important subject; it is right that it should be raised at this stage, and I very much hope that as a result of the Bill, we can at long last do something about it.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I have listened to the admirable speeches that have been made on this subject and, even if I had not been persuaded by this whole debate, I certainly am now. I hope that the Minister will be, too.
	As some of your Lordships will know, I was appreciative of citizenship being made a statutory part of the curriculum. I remember our debating how important it would be to teach parenting—not just how you got on with your own parents, but what your thoughts were when you became you became a parent and what you reckoned your responsibilities were, as well the enjoyment you were going to get out of it. There seems to be no reason why all these subjects, which are very important in today's world, are not clearly joined up and made a compulsory part of the curriculum. Far more importantly, they should be taught together so that they are not spread about in other parts of other people's lessons, thereby preventing the message coming across. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Northbourne when he said that children should emerge from the education process feeling comfortable with themselves. That will be important in how they negotiate their way through the world.
	However, they will learn so much within their own community about they can be a more effective part of it and how they can be tolerant of what happens in their own groupings. Bullying was mentioned. It is horrifying to hear how often people who are involved in such activities as caring for disabled, disadvantaged or drug-ridden parents get bullied because they are not in attendance the whole time or for whatever reason they are picked on.
	I hope that the Minister will give strong consideration to all three of these amendments. All three of them are important. I remember the time when the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, acted on the HIV/AIDS scare. For the first time, you could see action being taken—it had a very good effect indeed. In other areas, the same preventive measures were not taken, and we know what happened.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, other noble Lords have argued that the case for other subjects is equally strong. The noble Lord may not form that view, but strong views on those subjects are held.
	We have actively sought to improve PSHE. My noble friend Lady Gould mentioned the healthy school standard, as did my noble friend Lady Massey. Our target is that over half of schools should have achieved the healthy school standard by the end of this year. Some 48 per cent have already achieved it. I believe that we shall exceed the target of over half achieving it by the end of this year. More than 75 per cent of schools are engaged in the programme. To achieve the healthy school standard—in which weare investing more than £12 million this year, up from £5 million in 2003-04—the first criterion is evidence of how the school delivers personal, social and health education, including sex and relationship education and education on drugs, including alcohol, tobacco and volatile substance abuse. The healthy school status guide is made available to all schools. As I say, 48 per cent of schools have achieved the healthy school standard and many others are coming through. All the opening sections of the guide relates to PSHE. It states that a healthy school:
	"1. uses the PSHE framework to deliver a planned programme of PSHE, in line with DfES/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) guidance;
	2. monitors and evaluates PSHE provision to ensure the quality of teaching and learning;
	3. assesses pupils' progress and achievement in line with QCA guidance:
	4"—
	this relates to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—
	has a named member of staff responsible for PSHE provision with status, training and appropriate senior management support within the school. A Healthy School ... involves professionals from appropriate external agencies to create specialist teams to support PSHE delivery and to improve skills and knowledge, such as a school nurse, sexual health outreach workers and drug education advisers".
	The noble Baroness will know that we have a target of every cluster of schools having a school nurse in place by 2010. A healthy school also,
	"ensures provision of appropriate PSHE professional development opportunities for staff ... has mechanisms in place to ensure all pupils' views are reflected in curriculum planning, teaching and learning, and the whole school environment, including those with special educational needs and specific health conditions, as well as disaffected pupils, young carers and teenage parents".
	So the child should be at the absolute centre of how a healthy school plans its PSHE activities.
	We also have training in place for PSHE teachers. The noble Baroness said that we have further to go, and I accept that, but we have 5,000 teachers in place at the moment. We have 2,000 enrolled in the programme, we are continuing to sustain training at that level, and the certificate is at present entirely free. We are building up a larger body of PSHE-trained teachers. We are also establishing, as my noble friend Lady Gould mentioned, a PSHE subject association to provide a network of support for PSHE teachers and to increase their confidence.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the role of Ofsted. At the moment, it is reviewing the delivery of PSHE in schools. It will be issuing a report on PSHE by the end of the year, and we will look carefully at its findings. I would not wish to rule out further statutory underpinning for PSHE in the future; it needs to be kept under review. It is a vital area of education in schools, and in due course it may well be appropriate to bring in a statutory framework. However, at this stage the priority is to continue to make real improvements on the ground and to invest in training, support and incentives for PSHE rather than to seek statutory changes that will be seen as nationally prescriptive and run against our desire to have fewer, not more, statutory burdens on schools. For those reasons, while we wish to see much stronger support for PSHE in schools, the Government do not support the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. I am pleased that we begin our debate on the curriculum today with the two most important groups of amendments tabled for your Lordships' consideration: the group before us now, which will give all children the right to study three separate science subjects until the age of 16; and the second group, which will give all maintained schools the right to offer the rigorous IGCSE as an alternative to the current option.
	Taken together or separately, the first cluster of amendments would reform science teaching in our schools. Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 seek to confirm the policy pledges of the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his science and investment framework initiative from this year's Budget. Amendment No. 96 attaches an entitlement to study the three sciences as separate subjects to those who attain level 6 at key stage 3. Amendment No. 97 goes further and ensures that all specialist science schools would provide that entitlement. Her Majesty's Government have already pledged to achieve those aims by 2008 in line with our amendments, so I hope that the Minister will not shy away from the opportunity to cement that pledge in the Bill. To me, Amendment No. 95 is of the utmost importance. It will allow all pupils to study the three sciences as separate subjects until the age of 16.
	Noble Lords will be extremely familiar with this debate. I was hugely encouraged by the support for this topic from all Benches in Committee and I have followed the recent media interest in giving an entitlement to study the three sciences with great interest, not least because I am so pleased that it has been given a place in the national debate that it deserves. We are at the pinnacle of that debate today. We have an opportunity to make a difference to our children's future opportunities and to our children's future place in the world economy.
	We face a threat to the future of science in this country. The problem is not a new one, but it is acute. We live in a world where our competitors will stride far ahead of us. The Economist recently ran a 15-page special report on the "The Search for Talent: Why it's getting harder to find". It tells us of the problems facing a world that is not educating its scientists adequately; and it tells of a world where our competitors in Shanghai have established a human talent market and where a Singaporean statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, recognises that,
	"trained talent is the yeast that transforms a society and makes it rise".
	Yet our teaching of the most important subjects outside numeracy and literacy has been demoted—it is the privilege of those who must prove their achievement at a young age.
	It is not acceptable to segregate children from a proper science education should they seek one, purely because they do not get the grades when they are 14 years old. Whatever a child's ability, the children whom we are educating for the future need to have the option to undertake a rigorous course of study—a course that teaches the learning of hard, empirical fact, that teaches how to analyse that fact, that teaches how to formulate an argument based on that analysis and, what is more, that teaches young adults how to assess rigorously the success or otherwise of that process of learning, application and analysis.
	The relative merits—or lack thereof—of this new single science course are widely publicised. The narrowing of the curriculum is patronising at best, and incredibly damaging at worst. The rector of Imperial College London, Sir Richard Sykes, stated on BBC news that,
	"for those who really want to go on and study a subject in depth, and particularly go to a good university like Imperial, then they'll never get there unless they study the individual subjects and take A-levels in these individual subjects".
	Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not today analyse the virtues of studying a module entitled "You and your genes". It sounds rather like a fashion module that has found its way on to the science curriculum. I was appalled to read the words of Andrew Hunt, who has personal overall responsibility for developing the new so-called Twenty First Century Science curriculum, including the single science course. He stated in a public e-mail:
	"What Twenty First Century Science also offers in 'Science' is an engaging course for students who will not take their Science further".
	I do not accept that the amendment will incur a spending commitment. The study of the three sciences will take up a maximum of 10 per cent extra curriculum time over and above the 20 per cent taken up by the dual award, or the new single-plus additional science syllabus. I do not see why an extra science could not be chosen in lieu of another subject. Furthermore, in answer to the Minister's concern about teacher numbers, I accept that there is a dearth of science teachers today, and applaud the creation of new incentives. However, all schools offer the dual science awards now. There is much that can now be achieved on the available resources.
	We know from an Answer in another place over a year ago that Her Majesty's Government expect that at least 80 per cent of students should do at least two science GCSEs. That is to say that, at the very least, 20 per cent of pupils will study the single sciences course. This is a course whose own creator has acknowledged is useless outside the classroom; it will do nothing to prepare our children for the realities or facts of a world that will demand far more scientific attention on the environment and energy provision than ever before.
	Aldous Huxley got it right when he said:
	"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored".
	Let us not ignore the facts today. I hope that the Minister can act in the spirit of consensus with noble Lords from all Benches, and allow this important entitlement into the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I apologise to the House because this is the first time I have addressed it on the Education and Inspections Bill. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber earlier will realise that I do so with a particular interest in the new science syllabus, Twenty First Century Science.
	I have taken the Times for all my adult life, although I try to read other papers as well. I think some of its front-page headlines have become pretty silly, but when I read its headline on Wednesday, 11 October—"Science elite rejects new GCSE as 'fit for the pub'"—I exploded. I thought of cancelling my subscription, but my wife said she enjoys other parts of the newspaper.
	Twenty First Century Science has been a long time in gestation. It fits admirably with the chapter about science education in the report of the Science and Technology Select Committee, Science and Society. I chaired the sub-committee, and we did not initially intend to have a chapter about education. However, we received so much evidence from all sides that much of the problem of the alienation of the public from science starts in the schools that we decided that we needed to address the subject as part of our wider study. I am very glad we did, because the people who devised this new syllabus—they were working independently from us—told me very early on that they applauded us for addressing the subject. We agreed that, as the new syllabus emerged, it would closely reflect the philosophy of the Select Committee.
	My noble friend Lady Buscombe—who let me know five minutes before Questions that she does not agree me on this—praised Sir Richard Sykes for his view. I have enormous respect for Sir Richard, and I had two long meetings with him in the past week. In the end, he agreed that we are fundamentally trying to achieve the same objective. However, not for the first time,Sir Richard is a bit out on a limb. When the Times reported that the science elite opposes this syllabus, it seemed to ignore that the Royal Society—its former president, the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, took part in Questions—the Institute of Physics, the Royal Institute of Chemistry, the Institute of Biology and the British Association for the Advancement of Science have all roundly supported the new syllabus as a valuable step in the right direction.
	My noble friend suggested to me that the new syllabus fails because it does not meet the need for pupils to study the three sciences separately. I must say to my noble friend, with the greatest of respect—as they sometimes say in the courts—she has misdirected herself. I have a note from the Nuffield Foundation, which with the University of York has been the main intellectual powerhouse behind the new syllabus. It states clearly:
	"Science education in schools has two jobs to do: to provide a worthwhile education for all preparing them for adult and working life",
	and,
	"to lay the foundations for more advanced study in science".
	It goes on:
	"Twenty First Century Science does both in ways that is attracting international interest—not least because the approach is based on a ten year programme of research and development backed up with trials and evaluation".
	Those promoting the syllabus have engaged the scientific community right from the start—names that are nationally known and others who are specialists in their special subject and may not be so well known. They have been a source—

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I confess that I lack any expertise in this area and my mind is rather transfixed on modern foreign languages right now, but I was involved in this matter when I was chairman of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. I have great sympathy with the concern of the noble Baroness to develop our capability in sciences at the highest level. I should like to clear my mind on some points.
	Reference has been made to A-levels. One can take the individual sciences at A-level. The three amendments concern key stage 4. They state that if a pupil has reached level 6 at key stage 4, he or she may have the option of pursuing not general science but the individual sciences. My understanding is that the only duty of the school in relation to key stage 4 science is that the pupil should have followed the programme of study in the 21st century science curriculum. There is no obligation to take the GCSE in it, but they must cover the programme of study. The expectation is that they will do the single-science paper, but they can take any other single science they wish at GCSE. They can, for example, take a single science as an additional science, which can be in an individual science.
	If the pupil chooses at the end of key stage 3 to study the individual sciences, as I understand it, there is nothing to stop that pupil taking the GCSE in all three sciences, provided that he or she has covered the syllabus of the 21st-century science. In doing those three sciences, apart from some geology and astronomy, he or she will have done so. It therefore seems that the opportunity is there for the pupil to do an individual science, and I am keen that there should be that opportunity.
	When I was chairman of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, I used to knock respectfully at the door of the Royal Society and ask about the individual sciences. There is such a gap between general science at A-level and individual sciences that we are not getting the through-put to A-level from the other sciences. The Royal Society used to tell me that it was so important for pupils to have a general understanding of science and that it was worried that, if individual sciences were offered, girls would choose biology and not do physics or chemistry. I used to leave abashed and defeated and say that I could not contest against the Royal Society. I understand that the situation has changed since then and that the only obligation now is to have covered the syllabus for the general science—the 21st-century science. Provided the pupil does that, they can do all three sciences or take the syllabus for the general science for one and do one or two of the others. There are many options.
	There is nothing between my objectives and those of the noble Baroness, who says that the cut-off point should be whether the child has reached level 6 at the end of key stage 3. That is a bit above average, but nothing spectacular. When I was revising the national curriculum, there were 10 levels. I recommended reducing it to eight levels, because the high levels were covered by the GCSE. The noble Baroness proposes level 6. As I say, that is above average, but nothing spectacular. I think I agree with the noble Lord that a general understanding of science is the important part of education. I would regret it if level 6 was regarded as adequate.
	My main point—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; indeed, I am watching the officials' eyes and mouths to see whether I am getting it all wrong—is that there are opportunities to pursue the individual sciences. I cannot contest with the noble Lord or comment on the value of 21st-century science, but I take his word for it. I wanted to clarify what I believe to be the reality of the options.

Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, I should like to add one or two points. I agree with quite a lot of the discussion that has been put forward today. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that we need the type of course being suggested. Having looked into this—not in detail, I must admit—and having spent the past 40 years involved in syllabus corrections and curricula dealings in chemistry, I can look at it with a degree of objectivity.
	One problem is quite simple: we have two different sections of the community, as we have heard. We need to recognise that there is a need within the public to understand science. However, my experience has been that the correlation between that course and the A-level is a big step. A big difficulty that we face is that if we are to do this course as well, we should reconsider the A-level. This cannot be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. In response to a question earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, the Minister said that a larger number of people are taking AS level, but those people do not necessarily go on to take A-level. They are encouraged to take AS level because, say, chemistry attracts them. When they start AS-level or A-level chemistry, they find that it is not the same animal at all and that it is a much more difficult animal to deal with, so they very often drop it like a hot potato at that stage.
	We cannot consider the curricula in bits, as we do. There is a continuum that must go from GCSE to AS-level to A-level and, perhaps I may dare say, to universities. In many ways, universities are the culprits in this because they set the standards of entry. Very often, they set the standards by saying, "We want the old A-level type of result" and do not recognisethe problems which have now become inherent in the whole concept of modern day society; namely, that we must educate people in a general way and then allow for specialisation to come forward. I have great sympathy with the suggestion being made. I believe that the only way we will deal with the present AS/A-level is by having specialisation at earlier stages. In my mind, the correct answer is to look now at the AS and the A-level.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 98, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103. These amendments would allow the maintained sector to follow alternative examination routes in order to drive up rigour and standards in schools. Amendment No. 98 would allow pupils in maintained schools to take the IGCSE in science and mathematics and ensure that the qualification is considered acceptable in lieu of a GCSE for the purposes of government league tables.
	When we previously dealt with this issue in Committee, I was pleased that the Minister recognised that the IGCSE is an "effective programme of study". The international GCSE has been offered since 1988 and is recognised by universities and employers worldwide. More than 4,000 schools across the world, including more than 200 UK schools, teach international GCSE, which is taken in more than 100 countries with 350,000 entries a year. This is tried and tested. Two exam boards, Cambridge and Edexcel, already offer the IGCSE. It is recognised by UCAS, which accepts the IGCSE in lieu of the GCSE.
	Needless to say, Governments overseas have seen the light and approved the IGCSE at national and federal levels. The take-up of the exam in diverse overseas curricula is striking. The United States is ahead of us on this. The Florida state legislature lists the International GCSE as a "rigorous academic programme". IGCSEs are recognised by the Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Virginia as equivalent to its own state standards. What is more striking is that this Government support the IGCSE—but only overseas. The government-funded British Council delivers the IGCSE to over 45,000 candidates a year from all around the world. Noble Lords will understand my surprise on reading the words of the Minister in another place, Jim Knight, who stated:
	"Inclusion of the IGCSE would be contrary to the policy that the basics must be achieved by everyone if the IGCSE has not first been proven to meet those standards".
	Clearly, the IGCSE has proven standards. It is good enough for British children overseas, but not for children in the maintained sector at home, who could benefit so much.
	The Chancellor is committed to closing the gap between the maintained and the independent sector, yet as usual that means matching pound for pound—matching the quantity and not the quality of provision. That is nothing less than unacceptable. The Minister mentioned a report from the QCA on this subject in Committee. We have not read the report, but I suspect that the QCA will continue to dig in its heels. Yet what surprises me is that the Secretary of State has not seen the evidence of his own Government's international practice and that of other Governments.
	A news report from the Independent on 2 September showed that as many as half of all independent schools have now adopted the exam. Head teachers at independent schools say that the GCSE is no longer sufficient preparation for A-levels. We have debated the inadequacies of the new science curriculum. The maths curriculum has seen some improvement in the recent commitment to scrap maths coursework, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that policy today. The IGCSE applies that valuable concept to all subjects. Christopher Ray, High Master of Manchester Grammar School, has said:
	"We wanted the coursework-free option because the coursework that is demanded for GCSE maths is very routine and very undemanding".
	It is sad that we can only quote today from the independent sector. The maintained sector is being denied the privilege of choosing its exams; it is legally prevented from making those choices. I expect that Members on the Benches to my right and the Benches opposite would agree with us that that must change.
	Amendment No. 102 would change the current system so that it is not necessary to take an AS-level in order to complete an A-level course. It is based on the recognition that the artificial split between AS and A2 has had a detrimental effect on education at sixth-form level, which has become exacerbated by an increasing obsession with the modularisation of the qualification. I do not propose to abolish the AS-level; it is clear that there is a need for a one-year course for pupils who do not intend to take a subject further. I do not have any objection in principle to the idea that this course can be upgraded to an A-level at a later point. However, I fear that the AS-level has diluted what was a rigorous, linear course of study under the two-year A-level.
	Many pupils have found that the AS has forced them to cut back on extra-curricular activities. The summer term in the first year of sixth form, when sixth formers often take on extra responsibilities in the absence of those in the final year, has become disrupted by study leave and examinations. The artificial split of a two-year course of study into two one-year courses has resulted in students following up to 12 loosely connected courses and being assessed 12 different times. Schools should have the choice to offer a rigorous, linear course that allows for the development of intellectual maturity.
	We have debated science and maths, but let us not forget the arts subjects. Attainment in English literature, history, geography and languages improves over time. Graham Able, the head of Dulwich College, says that A-levels are,
	"lacking in stimulus. They are putting in things that are simply to examined in little chunks but have little real value. We are wasting a lot of time doing coursework. It is doing simple things more mechanically".
	It should be extremely worrying that universities are already indicating that some of the qualifications I mentioned are superior to the A-level. If good schools adopt the most rigorous qualifications of the international baccalaureate, the international A-level and the Cambridge Pre-U, then the gap between those schools and poor schools will be exacerbated further.
	Amendment No. 103 protects the status of the international baccalaureate. Although it is currently approved by the QCA for teaching in maintained schools, the amendment would give the qualification statutory protection. I feel that such protection would be useful: it would reinforce the respectability of the exam if Parliament were to approve it in this manner.
	I would also like to expose the inconsistency of permitting the international baccalaureate diploma, yet not the international GCSE. I think that it is particularly inconsistent given that the international baccalaureate diploma is approved by the QCA for the pre-16 age group. The Minister needs to explain in which respects the international baccalaureate differs from the international GCSE. I appreciate that it is a level 3 rather than a level 2 qualification, but the fact remains that a school could offer the international baccalaureate to gifted and talented students at key stage 4, but could not offer others the IGCSE at this stage.
	I look forward to the Minister's response to these amendments, in particular to my AmendmentNo. 98—which I hope he can accept in the interests of consistent opportunities and standards for all children at all schools in this country. I beg to move.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, regarding the IGCSE, the international baccalaureate and AS-levels. I touched on some of those points at Second Reading. I would like to draw the attention of the House to Amendment No. 99, standing in my name in this group, which also returns to an issue that I raised at Second Reading and concerns youngsters who may not be able to aspire to the levels of attainment that the noble Baroness has just outlined.
	I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet Mr Mike Bell, who saw the Minister's officials, along with colleagues from the Education Policy Network. I readily accept that some tentative steps have been made in the Bill to move in the direction that I have argued for.
	As at Second Reading, in this amendment I hope to put the spotlight on the 30 per cent of pupils who leave education at 16 with few or no useful qualifications—ordinary young people who have simply found education difficult. Later in their lives, you may meet them as loving parents, excellent mechanics, first-rate shop assistants, skilful lorry drivers and a host of other careers that are vital to the economic and social life of our nation. Lest too rosy a picture of this group should lull your Lordships into complacency, consider that some 80 per cent of the prison population are from this group and some become the disaffected youth that so many towns-people fear on their streets at night.
	I would like to tell your Lordships about real young people whose names have been changed, but whose stories have been told to me by practising teachers: of Janie, who worked hard every lesson, often got the work right in class, but who always did badly in tests and exams, however hard she worked, and of Bethany, who would often complete the work the teacher had set, but most of her answers were wrong. Both have now left school and are trainees in hair and beauty salons. Or I can tell you of Jamie, who arrives in lessons so eager to get his hands on things that he often gets into trouble for taking the teachers materials; or of Joe, who is expected by his GCSE entitlement to work out the percentage efficiency of a light bulb. He has struggled with ratio and never grasped percentages despite hard work by himself and his teachers and the word "efficiency" means nothing to him. And Ben hated school so much that he would work only under threat of punishment, but is now successfully engaged on an engineering apprenticeship. Those are just a few voices from around 200,000 young people who, in one year group, had academic abilities lying between the 5th and 30th percentiles.
	The aim of the amendment is to give all those pupils the chance to leave school with certificates showing what they can do. For many in this group, the current system tells them only what they cannot do. Grades E, F and G at GCSE are of no value as entry to courses, and employers consider them to be "fail" grades. Around 55 per cent of pupils achieve five A to C grades, but that means that 45 per cent do not.
	As I have indicated, this Education and Inspections Bill goes some way towards addressing the issue, and I welcome the fact that the new specialist diplomas will be available at level 1, as well as at the GCSE equivalent, level 2. I also welcome the introduction of the new functional skills, which should enable teachers to focus on the basics of maths and English with pupils for whom algebra and Shakespeare may be inappropriate. However, these new courses are not yet available and, while there is no guarantee that they will meet the needs of non-academic pupils, I ask the Minister, in responding to the amendment, at least to flesh out some of the detail of what they will involve and give us some kind of timetable for their implementation. We need to remember that the same institutions—the Department for Education and Skills and the QCA—which are drawing up the new courses were also responsible for the previous curriculum, which sadly has humiliated many of these less able young people, turned them off education and, in some cases, turned them against society.
	Our gifted civil servants never were in the bottom set at school. They have probably never been in regular personal contact with the people whose plight I am trying to highlight in the amendment. When the national curriculum was introduced in 1998, teachers found it so impractical and prescriptive that in 1993 the Government very sensibly commissioned my noble friend Lord Dearing—then Sir Ron Dearing—to make it more manageable. As he indicated in our earlier debate on the previous set of amendments, he slimmed it down considerably.
	The curriculum proposals in the Bill are further attempts to patch and mend the national curriculum to meet the needs of real children found in real classrooms by real teachers, rather than the intellectual model of a pupil which seems to stalk the corridors of the Department for Education and Skills. Teachers tell me that you have to teach these youngsters regularly for some time before you come to terms with the fact that they are not simply misbehaving. They tell me that, for some students, however many times you teach some topics, however helpful the worksheet and however interesting the presentation, some pupils continually report, "I've no idea what you are talking about, sir".
	Classroom experience and research evidence shows that the range of abilities in the average classroom is far wider than is reflected in current GCSE courses. Surely it is time to admit these facts and offer all pupils courses that stretch their abilities and also give them the chance to succeed. After all, the word "education" is derived from Latin. Its meaning is clear: to draw out; to lead forth. For education to work, it must start from where pupils are today and lead them forward.
	I suppose that if I could caricature the amendment in one phrase, it would be "Let them succeed". The problem that we see today derives from the concept of "entitlement". It is used in the national curriculum and we have heard much about it this afternoon. The Minister may try to persuade the House that my amendment undermines the entitlement of all pupils to a broad and balanced curriculum. If he does tell us that, he will be wrong on two counts. First, my amendment applies to key stage 4—to 14 year-olds. It does not reduce the breadth of the curriculum at key stage 3—the first three years at secondary school. Secondly, it does not allow pupils to opt out of core subjects. It simply gives them the right to follow, for example, a course in mathematics to which they are suited.
	This so-called entitlement is a dangerous corruption of the use of the word in common parlance. To most of us, if we have an entitlement, it means that we can choose to have it or not. In education, however, entitlement means compulsion. All pupils must follow this or that course. Let us imagine that when you joined a gymnasium you were "entitled"—for which we should read "compelled"—to run 10 miles on the treadmill and lift 100 pound weights. For some, that would be physical education; for others—probably people like me—it would be a disaster. It has been the same in education for 15 years. Some aspects of this entitlement have driven some pupils to despair, disengagement and disaffection. Any sensible gymnasium assesses each member and gives them a training programme designed for their particular needs. Although that cannot be done to the same degree at school, my amendment would move the curriculum in that direction.
	Whenever teachers talk about their work, the same themes repeat themselves: staff leaving through stress, poor classroom behaviour, disaffection with learning and dumbing down of academic standards. Employers complain of skill shortages and low standards of literacy and numeracy. At first these appear as separate issues, but a closer look reveals deep connections. They all result from treating pupils as though they were similar.
	Taking an average form-group of 30 pupils just starting their GCSE courses in year 10, their key stage 3 results from earlier in the summer tell us that there are three pupils at level 3 or below, five at level 4, 11 at level 5—the average for this age group—eight at level 6 and three at level 7 or above. Those figures may not mean much to the lay observer, so translating them into notional academic ages reveals that the average form starting at year 10 contains three 8 year-olds, five 11 year-olds, 11 14 year-olds—the age of most year 10s—but also eight 16 year-olds and three pupils with the same thinking skills as good university students. That is a remarkably high range. We would find it strange if we were to have 11 year-olds and 16 year-olds in the same class, but, in terms of academic age, that is the pattern at age 14 in every non-selective school in the country. The idea that we should be offering all pupils variations on the same course, as at present, is simply nonsense.
	Further evidence comes from Shayer and Adey's research at Kings, London on cognitive acceleration. Many schools use CASE in science—cognitive acceleration through science education—or its equivalent, CAME, in maths. These programmes, which are proven to work, are based on an understanding which divides thinking into two broad groups: first, everyday concrete thinking, which is largely about facts and descriptions of the world; and, secondly, abstract formal thinking which requires a mental process.
	The research shows that only about 30 per cent of the adult population develops the abstract thinking skills needed for academic courses. That key fact is too often overlooked when education policy is being made. Not only do we have an age range of at least eight years, but it is divided into two distinct groups: those who can access the abstract topics and those who, at this stage of their lives at least, cannot. Failure is bound to follow if policy makers ignore those facts. Many of the problems encountered by teachers can be explained by the way in which the national curriculum forces teachers to put perfectly intelligent but concrete thinkers through courses that require abstract thinking.
	To conclude, education for some has become the basis for failure. While the Government have indicated that they will oppose my amendment, I hope that the House and the Government will at least give serious consideration to the principles that lie behind it. Give every child the right to follow courses which will show what he or she can do. Do not let us be persuaded by talk of entitlement, but listen to what practising teachers tell us about their daily experience with non-academic students. Do not be persuaded by promises of functional skills, specialist diplomas and foundation tier. Those have not yet been written and there is no guarantee that they will succeed in meeting that need. Spare a thought for the struggling pupil who feels humiliation on a daily basis at school and for the teachers who struggle to deal with their indifference. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 100, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, I shall speak also to other amendments in the group. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, we support Amendment No. 103. It has long been our policy on these Benches that we should broaden out the offering to pupils aged 16, 17 and 18 and the international baccalaureate provides that.
	However, we do not support Amendment No. 98. We feel that it looks back to the days of GCEs when there was a division between the sheep and the goats: GCEs for the brighter pupils and CSEs for the less bright pupils. On the whole, we feel that the IGCSE is based on the old GCE standard and is not necessarily appropriate as a broad examination across a whole range.
	We have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment No. 99, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but our policy is to implement the Tomlinson report which would have brought this about. The amendment to which I want to speak tries to bring a little more flexibility into the system of specialised diplomas that is being introduced. I raised this issue in Committee and since then I have had an opportunity to meet the QCA and Ken Boston to discuss what is being proposed under the specialised diplomas. I now have a much better understanding of what is intended and how the process will work.
	I tabled this amendment again largely because I want to continue to register the discontent on these Benches with the Government's interpretation of the Tomlinson report. The new specialised diplomas, if studied through to level 3, which is the A-level equivalent standard, will incorporate many of the Tomlinson proposals: the broader base of studies with a continuing role for maths and English, side-by-side, for example, with engineering and the need for extended essays or the practical equivalent in terms of a completed piece of artwork or an artefact. We applaud that. We are pleased that these generally welcome aspects of the Tomlinson report are to be incorporated into the diplomas but we are disturbed about the degree to which the choice between diploma and the GCSE and A-level route is likely to be made at 14 rather than 16, or indeed at 13 in terms of choices to be made a key stage 4.
	As presented in the Bill, key stage 4 is when the routes divide and pupils are given the choice of the GCSE route, which leads on to A-level, or the specialised diploma route. We are all agreed that it is necessary to broaden the secondary school offering and provide more courses with practical, hands-on content so that the many who learn by doing rather than just by theorising may be better motivated to continue their studies. That is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Nevertheless, it was intended that there should be an opportunity not only for the demotivated teenager to study construction skills or motor mechanics but for the aspiring engineer also to get his hands dirty with some practical studies if he wished to. As it is, with the key stage 4 diploma courses being the equivalent of five to six GCSEs, there is neither the opportunity for the construction skills student to study history nor for the aspiring civil engineer to study construction skills.
	The Minister will emphasise, I am sure, the degree to which students may switch courses at 16 and that the diploma courses at level 3 will be an A-level equivalent and provide a good route to university entrance, while the student who has taken the diploma course rather than GCSE may be able to proceed to AS and A-levels. How many actually will switch at this stage is yet to be seen. However, it is very depressing to read in the Times Educational Supplement of 13 October that many schools and local authorities are currently planning to ignore these new specialised diplomas in the hope, as the headline has it, that they will "just go away".
	High-achieving schools focusing on GCSE and A-levels fear that if they shift their focus they will lose their current high position in league tables. Low-achieving schools are concentrating on raising their league table position and, again, do not wish to divert effort and training into the new, untried areas. I hope that that report in the Times Educational Supplement was unduly alarmist and that things may change when the programme begins to roll out in 2008. As things stand, however, we are fearful that diplomas will be seen as an appropriate route only for pupils who are not bright enough to take GCSE and achieve an A-to-C grade and that those who switch from the GCSE route to the diploma route at 16 will be those deemed poor prospects for A-level.
	A key proposal in the Tomlinson report was the ability for all pupils to have the possibility of studying the practical side-by-side with the more theoretical. The present proposals do not fulfil that ambition. This amendment has been tabled in the—I suspect rather vain—hope that the Government will even at this late hour introduce more flexibility into the choices available.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, Amendment No. 98 would give governing bodies the power to introduce IGCSE courses in English, maths and science and add the IGCSE to the list of qualifications acceptable for the achievement and attainment tables. This issue has been raised on several occasions during debates on the Bill in this House and in another place. We have given it a great deal of thought.
	The IGCSE is a reputable qualification which some schools in this country clearly regard as beneficial to their students. However, we have a national statutory curriculum in place to ensure that all pupils receive a broad and rich curriculum. The Government must stand by the requirements of that curriculum. We would need to be sure, before we could allow the IGCSE to be used in state schools, that it met essential requirements in this regard.
	In order to take that forward, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to study the IGCSE and to give us its advice. We have now received its report. My right honourable friend proposes to ask the QCA—with the agreement of Cambridge Assessment and Edexcel, the two awarding bodies offering the IGCSE—to publish its report so that the Government can invite a wider consultation within the education community and beyond on the IGCSE's use in the maintained sector. We will then look at the results of that consultation with an open mind. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will find this a constructive way forward and that she, her party and other noble Lords who have expressed an interest will contribute to the consultation. At the end of that consultation, my right honourable friend and I will look at this issue to see whether it would be appropriate to allow the IGCSE to be offered in state schools.
	Amendment No. 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeks to ensure that all young people, whatever their level of ability, have access to courses in which they can succeed and to which they are suited. I broadly agreed with the noble Lord's remarks. In the past our curriculum has not been sufficiently flexible or rich to offer students opportunities of the kind that the noble Lord described. We accept that we must do a great deal more to meet their needs and to ensure that they have a successful experience of education so that they can leave school with skills they can apply in the workplace and are not held back by an unduly rigid curriculum and set of opportunities in school.
	I believe that the reforms we are putting in place will substantially, although perhaps not entirely, meet the points that the noble Lord raised. We probably part company only on the issue of continuing entitlements. Perhaps I may say to him in passing that not all entitlements are statutory. If they were, we would not have the problem that we now have in modern languages and we would not be inviting the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to issue his report. That is a classic area, and there are many others, where we have entitlements to provision within the curriculum that are not mandatory. They sometimes cause us difficulties because they lead students to choose not to follow those courses. In respect of modern languages, which is a pertinent issue, it was precisely with the group of students which the noble Lord mentioned in mind—those who are under-motivated by the current curriculum and need more flexibility as they come up to GCSE—that we were influenced to give more flexibility, to allow more opportunities for particularly work-related learning, and not to oblige students who have ceased to be motivated by particular subjects to continue all the way to 16.
	That comes at a price, though, and our debates on modern languages during the Bill's passage show that the price can be a serious one where students choose not to follow courses that we regard as worth while. But we have been prepared to go down that road. The issue of some difficulty is the core subjects, which the noble Lord mentioned and the House would not wish to see unstudied in state schools up to the age of 16. Even here, however, I suspect that the difference between the noble Lord and myself is more apparent than real. He said that he would wish functional English and mathematics to continue to be taught, and so do we.
	The introduction of diplomas will give more flexibility on that. The foundation level of the diploma—which is geared at students who currently achieve between grades D and G at GCSE, precisely the group that the noble Lord mentioned—will offer those students the opportunity to succeed with a worthwhile qualification. That will include, in its generic components, English and mathematics of a functional nature and not the whole programme leading to the current GCSE. Equally, we recognise the larger role that work-related learning can play. From September we have introduced the key stage 4 engagement programme, with precisely the sorts of students that the noble Lord mentioned in mind. It is designed to offer a motivating and engaging route for 14 to 16 year-olds at risk of disaffection, has a significant work focus of up to two days a week and is tailored to individual circumstances. From September, 21 schemes began for up to 5,000 young people. We shall study the experience of those schemes with care to see whether they are capable of wider application. I will see that the noble Lord has full details of them and can contribute to the ongoing debate about how we take this part of curriculum development forward.
	Amendment No. 100, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to allow all young people to choose to study both a specialised diploma and a course of study in one or more of the four entitlement areas of the arts, humanities, design and technology and modern foreign languages. The noble Baroness described this as a probing amendment, to understand more what our thinking was. I believe that her objectives are met by the design of the diploma as it is being taken forward by the sector skills councils, the departments and the QCA.
	At each of the three levels—level 1, the foundation level; level 2, which is equivalent to GCSEs; andlevel 3, which is equivalent to A-levels—the specialised diplomas will have three components: a generic component—English, maths and ICT; a principal learning component that will be sector-related to the area of the diploma; and, crucially, an additional specialist learning component. That additional specialist learning component may be further intensive study in the specialist area of the diploma—for example, a student studying engineering might study mechanical engineering in greater depth as part of his additional specialist learning—or it may involve taking additional subjects within the scope of the diploma, which would, for example, enable students in any of the diploma lines to study modern foreign languages as part of their additional learning. At level 2, the entire diploma will be equivalent to approximately six GCSEs. We have not finally decided the number, but it is likely to be in that area. That will give students the opportunity to study the equivalent of two to three GCSEs in their additional learning component. The areas in which students will be able to engage in additional learning will include the four areas specified in the noble Baroness's amendment: the arts, humanities, design and technology and modern foreign languages.
	I understand the point that the noble Baroness made, but we are not seeking to introduce new rigidities into the system. The whole purpose of the diploma is to significantly enlarge opportunities and make it much more possible for students to match theoretical and applied learning. We do not believe that it will be difficult for students to change diploma lines between levels 2 and 3. Students are not being required at the age of 14 to take a decision about their diploma line that will bind them until they finish school or college at the age of 18. On the contrary, the level 2 diploma, which is likely to be equivalent to six GCSEs at grades A* to C, will take students to the age of 16 when they will decide whether to take A-levels or to follow a diploma line at level 3, in exactly the same way as students who have gone down the conventional GCSE route decide at the end of their GCSEs. We are not in the business of introducing new rigidities.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 104, in accordance with paragraph 6.54 of the Companion, because the amendment was discussed, in a way, a week ago before your Lordships. It was a casualty of what I call irrational grouping; that is, it was hidden in a grouping to which it manifestly did not belong. That is an important issue which your Lordships should consider this evening. Amendments remain the property of the noble Lords in whose names they appear. They can alter a proposed grouping, but very often—sometimes because the groupings appear rather late—that is impossible, as it appears to have been impossible for this amendment, which appeared in a vast, almost surreal, grouping with other amendments when it came before the House.
	I shall use this occasion deliberately to deplore the proposals that departments sometimes advance for groupings that are manifestly irrational and unhelpful. We thought that we had seen the back of this sort of thing in the 1980s, but if 30 years' experience in this House has taught me one thing, it is that proposals for groupings should be the basis of sensible and orderly debate. No department should try to hide an awkward issue—if that was the intention; no doubt it was not in this case—by putting it with amendments that are manifestly not on the same subject.
	Amendment No. 104, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, spoke last week, at cols. 706-07 of the Official Report, addressed a duty that was created only in 1944 for schools to have an obligatory daily act of collective worship. The amendment, as the noble Baroness made clear, would replace that duty with a duty to hold a daily assembly aimed at supporting people's,
	"spiritual, moral, social and cultural education".—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 707.]
	The importance of that phrase was made clear earlier this afternoon.
	The act of worship needs to be broadly Christian, but the amendment is of interest not only to humanists, atheists or agnostics, or even to religions other than those with a Christian tradition. This is a fundamental issue, which the Government so far have not addressed. The Minister addressed Amendment No. 104 in another sitting, but I hope that he will not mind my saying that I thought that his reply to its case was rather perfunctory. No doubt, having been given a little more time, he may do better tonight.
	The Minister claimed that this obligatory act of daily worship represented,
	"the values and traditions of the majority in this country".—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 736.]
	I beg leave to doubt whether that is now the case and suggest that it is out of date. No doubt polls will be quoted, but I refer those who cite polling evidence to an article in the Times only yesterday, in which an expert on the matter said that polling is increasingly,
	"being used to manufacture the headlines rather than uncover the facts".
	The expert is a chief executive of a very important polling organisation.
	The Minister did not address the substantive case, made by the British Humanist Association, the National Secular Society and many other organisations, that the time for this obligation in all schools has passed. I will not quote those organisations, because noble Lords will think that they are parti pris; I will quote what the Government's inspectorate wrote in a document that was separately published, so important was it, a year later, under the heading Secondary Education. In 1998, Ofsted said that the whole question of daily collective worship,
	"raises questions about the ... Act and its interpretation, and in particular whether schools in a broadly secular society can or should bring their pupils together in order to engage in worship. For Roman Catholic, Church of England and other denominational schools the answer is clear in principle. For most LEA and grant maintained schools, however, the notion of worship, and indeed that of prayer, can be problematic at both an institutional and a personal level".
	In my submission, nothing has changed to make that decisive judgment inapplicable today.
	Of course, the Government may refer to Amendments Nos. 79 and 151, which were passed in your Lordships' House on 17 October. Those government amendments allow sixth formers to have a special right to escape from collective worship in which they do not believe. That right is for sixth formers, but what about the rights of fifth or fourth formers—or third formers, given that I have grandchildren who have reached that elevated level? Do the Government think that those students do not discuss such matters and that they do not have incipient and, in some cases, firm beliefs, and that sixth formers alone should be granted this inalienable right to get out of collective worship?
	In order to clarify the point, I asked a very close friend, who is a devoted and devout Christian and a very honest person, what it was all about. He laughed and chided me, and said, "Come on, you must be joking. You know perfectly well what it is all about. We want to get at them early on. Give us a few years of prayer and worship and you can do what you like with them and, what's more, the Jesuits can do what they like with them". The noble Lord shakes his head. I am sorry to offer that to him, but that is what my friend said. It may be wrong, but if it is not the case, what on earth is the point of making these boys and girls go to a religious occasion in which they may already not believe or, more important, in which they may have begun not to believe?
	Professor Richard Dawkins addressed this issue on page 185 of his recently published book, The God Delusion. He wrote:
	"Could irrational religion be a by-product of the irrationality mechanisms that were originally built into the brain by selection for falling in love? Certainly, religious faith has something of the same character as falling in love (and both have many of the attributes of being high on an addictive drug)",
	which he names in the footnote—I did not know it—as "Gerin Oil". That is not an oil company; it is the name apparently of an addictive drug. He went on to quote the neuropsychiatrist, John Smythies, who said:
	"One facet of the many faces of religion is intense love focused on one supernatural person, i.e. God, plus reverence for icons of that person. Human life is driven largely by our selfish genes and by the processes of reinforcement. Much positive reinforcement derives from religion: warm and comforting feelings of being loved and protected in a dangerous world, loss of fear of death, help from the hills in response to prayer in difficult times".
	Your Lordships will forgive my reading, which has recently suffered an attack of something no doubt from beyond the hills.
	In the face of the question that we are addressing, the point of the quotation is: what on earth is the point of getting together boys and girls from third, fourth and even fifth forms to obey an order that they must express warmth and loving hopes for help coming to them from beyond the hills? It seems a very strange thing to do, except perhaps in very unorganised and not advanced societies. Dawkins concludes his argument on such matters with words that I suggest the Government should gather together daily to read—aloud, if possible—on their sofas in an assembly devoted to collective inquiry. He wrote:
	"An atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam"—
	no doubt he would have added other religions had he time—
	"and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage".
	That is important because this amendment does not seek to make anyone do anything except attend an assembly, which, as I have understood today's debate, is a matter of common ground in the whole House, on all Benches, to advance the,
	"spiritual, moral ... and cultural education",
	of all pupils. There lies the nub of the amendment, which I am happy to support.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I guess that none of us is going to be persuaded very much by what has been said, so I, too, have an incentive to be brief. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that I was invited by the Church of England to chair a review of the future of church schools, which caused me to go out and about in the land. One of the schools I went into was in Bradford, where it appeared to me that95 per cent of pupils were Muslim. That did not suggest to me that they were coming to be indoctrinated.
	I turned to the Bishop of London on one occasion and raised this question with him because I was aware that Muslim children often went to church schools. He said, "I asked the same question to a leader of the Muslim community, and he said, 'We look at it like this: there are those who believe in God and those who don't. You do, and we feel more comfortable in a school where there is this belief than we would otherwise'". That does not suggest indoctrination. If I remember correctly—and my memory is fallible—in the report of the committee which I chaired, we made it explicit that the business was not to convert but to offer young people the experience of what it is to learn and play within the framework of a community that had values and certain beliefs.
	Some things about the amendment surprise me. I found no difficulty with Proposed Section 4 because parents already have that right. They can withdraw from religious assemblies, but very few do, which suggests that they are not perturbed by them.
	Proposed Section 2(1) refers to furthering a pupil's,
	"spiritual, moral, social and cultural education".
	That seems to deny schools that are not voluntary aided the choice of making it an act of worship. Subsection (5) of proposed Section 3 makes it explicit that voluntary-aided schools may do so; the implication is that others cannot. I wonder where that leaves voluntary-controlled faith schools, of which there are very many.
	I was surprised that proposed Section 3(8) said that a voluntary-aided school may, on special occasions, use a church in which to worship. Why only on special occasions? There are schools which have a church on site; perhaps the church is the only place with a room big enough to accommodate everyone.
	I must not go on about the detail. I just wanted to put differently the main point made by my noble friend Lord Alton. In the faith schools of which I have some knowledge, the business is not to seize minds, it is to open minds.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 113, 114 and 115. The title given to Clause 72, to which Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107 pertain, is:
	"Education and training to satisfy entitlements".
	I had queried its purpose in our discussions in Committee. My amendments would write into the Bill age 25 rather than age 19 as the maximum age at which those over compulsory school age, but not possessing a level 2 or a level 3 qualification, are able to come back to into the educational system to gain such qualifications. I have proposed the amendments because, in March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech that the age at which young people might get free tuition at further education colleges in training courses which led to a level 2 or a level 3 qualification would be raised to 25. The Bill ought to reflect that change.
	In Committee, the Minister explained—I have received a further letter from him which sets out the position in greater detail and for which I thank him—that the Bill relates only to the core entitlement set out in new Section 3B, which reflects the core entitlement in Clause 71 to courses in English, maths and science, and to the additional entitlement in new Section 3C to take courses in one of the entitlement areas specified by the Secretary of State. These are the specialised diplomas which are being introduced and are identified in Clause 81.
	In his letter to me, the Minister wrote as follows:
	"The main purpose of the clause is to place a duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure sufficient provision in each locality to enable 16-19 year olds to access all 14 Diploma lines and the core entitlement of English, maths and ICT. Therefore, this clause will give all young people, wherever they are in the country, an entitlement to a course of study in one of the Diploma entitlement areas.
	The collaborative nature of delivery which will be necessary to ensure all young people have access to the specialised diplomas means that we will need more than funding streams to ensure that post-16 providers are all working in partnership to deliver these significant curriculum reforms; that is why we are placing a new duty on the LSC through this clause".
	The announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in March related to a different entitlement. I again quote the Minister's letter:
	"The Level 2 and Level 3 entitlements are aimed at a slightly different, voluntary, audience. Those wishing to access these entitlements are more likely to be returning to education following a break. The courses offered in this entitlement include more vocational and job specific courses, as well as the more generic courses.
	The Level 2 and Level 3 entitlements are removing financial barriers to further learning by ensuring tuition for those eligible is free. Clearly, provision for all adults cannot be guaranteed, and so we would not be justified in creating a statutory entitlement. However, through greater refocusing of public support the government is expanding the opportunities for eligible adults to achieve a first full Level 2 and Level 3 qualification".
	We know that because those who have had anything to do with adult education know that funds are being transferred from adult education into meeting the "full-fat", as we call it, level 2 entitlement and the level 3 entitlement.
	In Committee, the Minister described this second set of entitlements as non-statutory entitlements for young people and adults to study, free of tuition charges, on courses leading to a level 2 or a level 3 qualification. I understand the distinction between the statutory entitlements described in Clause 72 and those which are non-statutory. However, the Government seem to be seeking to draw an over-fine distinction between these two sets of entitlements. On the one hand, they are saying that they want to hold open the opportunity for everyone up to the age of 25 to achieve a level 2 or a level 3 qualification; on the other, they are saying, "No, no, not that qualification; this qualification". The specialised diplomas will be available only up to age 19.
	I have one comment and one question for the Minister. The comment relates to the non-statutory nature of the up-to-25 entitlement. As far as I can see, it is a question of finance. The letter seems to say that, since provision for all adults cannot be guaranteed, a statutory requirement would not be justified. What, then, is an entitlement? A non-statutory entitlement is one that may be given and may be taken away. Given the known skills shortages in the UK, and the demographic trends which mean that we will have to look to training and retraining older people, surely this short-term approach is inadequate. We need to make sure that the LSC funds these longer-term training facilities just as much as it funds the specialised diploma facilities.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115. We raised this issue in Committee and it, too, relates to the age of 25. I have had further correspondence with the Minister on this issue. We raised the amendments on behalf of Skill—the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities—and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. Their purpose is to require that local education authorities make provision for transport for disabled students engaged in further education or training up the age of 25. Very often, these students, because of their disablement or learning disability, are behind in their studies and need to go through to 25. As I explained in Committee, we frequently see situations where the local LSC can agree to fund the student's tuition, but the student cannot make use of that funding because the LEA has no obligation to provide transport after the age of 19, although it is pressed by the Government to provide it up to 21. The Minister explained in his response that the LEAs are obliged to make transport plans which cover all students continuing in education up to 19 and, for disabled students and those with learning disabilities, up to 21, with the DfES recommending that the latter provision be made up to 25. Perhaps I may again read from the Minister's letter to me:
	"DfES are currently responsible for issuing the guidance that sets out these duties, detailing priorities and priority learner groups, and for ensuring that local transport policies fulfil the duty and have regard to that guidance. Officials will investigate complaints and advise and mediate with local authorities when there are concerns that their duties might not have been met. In the event that any complaint or claim cannot be resolved, the Secretary of State is empowered to direct local authorities to make arrangements for transport which are not in their published transport policy statements and carry out their duties.
	"Clause 74 is simply intended to transfer the current DfES administrative functions to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), while the Secretary of State retains his present powers to direct local authorities. One of the key goals of the LSC is to encourage young people to participate in learning and the transfer of this role will enhance their ability to do so.
	As part of taking on these responsibilities, we would like the LSC to strengthen its role with regard to the responsibilities of LSC area teams in local transport partnerships. At the local level, the LSC would work more closely with partnerships to fulfil their shared aims of improving the prospects of young people by encouraging participation in learning to enhance their skills".
	We welcome very much these developments. However, the evidence suggests that despite the work of the DfES and the guidance provided, many disabled students over 19 are not being funded by their local education authority for their transport costs and have to rely on family or friends if they are to continue participating in education or training. The Minister seems to be looking to the local LSCs to take on a more active role in overseeing these arrangements, but he will know that there is frequently little joined-up thinking between the local LSCs and LEAs. That is why I am bringing this amendment back. Getting something along these lines in the Bill would bring home to LEAs and the local LSCs precisely what their obligations are. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. The first three are essential if young adult disabled learners are to be entitled to continue their education and the second three, to which I have put my name, would ensure that they can actually get to their courses. Unlike my noble friend Lord Alton's interpretation of entitlement, we are talking about enabling and actually making possible. I refer to the noble Lord's remarks on Amendment No. 99.
	I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy of his letter about transport, which he sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I have no doubt of his commitment to making things work. The noble Baroness read out the passage where he says he hopes the LSC will work more closely with partnerships and will manage to encourage participation and be successful. The Minister went on to say:
	"In my view this is sufficient. Where there is evidence of a specific breach of these duties, my officials will investigate thoroughly and pursue vigorously".
	It should not have to come to that. We have been here before—and Guide Dogs for the Blind has cited instances when it was only with the intervention of a Minister that someone has managed to get to their course to pursue it. Skill and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association feel very strongly that further legislation is necessary, despite the welcome guidance in paragraph 12 of the transport support arrangements for students aged 16 to 19 2006-07. I should declare here that I am president of Skill.
	We know that there are still problems with this group. Skill has produced some evidence as has the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. The colleges and other providers say that there is a problem. The LSC knows that there is a problem; Through Inclusion to Excellence recognised that there was a major difficulty and recommended that the DfES and other government departments,
	"consider and propose appropriate transport legislation".
	The LSC received a 98 per cent positive response from the sector to its consultation on that recommendation.
	Another point is that in the main you really hear only of cases in which a problem has been resolved or there has been a struggle and a failure. The young adult disabled learners who have been turned down and are lost by the roadside go unrecorded. So it is possibly the tip of the iceberg. If there is not a real problem, as the Minister suggests that there is not, where is the harm in bringing in legislation? But the Minister is a very listening and thinking Minister and I hope for a positive response, as normal. Otherwise I hope that he might agree to, or consider, getting together with the LSC and the directors of children's services to discuss the problem further and more deeply.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the code. It seems to us to be logical. I know that many groups have been consulted. Moving the responsibility from the DCMS to the British Museum, with the appropriate safeguards, makes all the sense in the world because the British Museum has extensive knowledge. Of course, it will cut down on some of the costs involved.
	One issue that we have to raise is that of integrity. The Minister said that while those bringing forward treasure would have to feel that they were receiving a fair price, the Treasure Act itself is a law to try to stop those who take part in illicit activities and do not bring forward treasure finds to be valued. That is one of our major problems we have: the system of "night hawking" by metal detectorists who raid some of our fine sites, taking metal objects which could have been used for dating purposes.
	It is unfortunate that no prosecution has taken place under the Treasure Act, which is of course a valuable tool to show where the law lies. It has, however, been extremely difficult to bring about a prosecution. Despite some good work done by the police, the value of these finds often means that no prosecution is made, even though the damage to our ancient monuments in the acquisition of those illicit objects should not be underestimated.
	I raise this issue because the DCMS is giving up a responsibility to the British Museum. We should be looking carefully at the enforcement of the Treasure Act. This is one aspect of the Treasure Act, but we must also ensure that people are aware of the functioning of the Act. That has been undertaken by the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which is also based at the British Museum. There are 49 find liaison officers who liaise with finders and ensure that much of the information is gathered and recorded. The Portable Antiquities Scheme was originally set up with lottery funding, but the DCMS has taken on board that it has a responsibility to fund the scheme. Without the scheme—the linchpin of the Treasure Act—the Act would be worthless to a degree, because few people would know of its provisions and comply with them.
	I raise this issue because Portable Antiquities Scheme funding is currently under threat. Under the spending review for 2007, there has been a requirement to make cuts, year on year, of 7 per cent. That means that the Portable Antiquities Scheme would lose 19 posts by 2010, making it inoperable. There would then be a question mark over whether the Government were doing enough to ensure that the Treasure Act was properly supported. I asked the Government whether they could give an assurance that this would be reviewed; there is a review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme next year. It would be helpful, however, if the DCMS could give some assurance that the very linchpin of the Treasure Act is not going to be removed through funding cuts.
	Lending support to the idea that this must be done, objects are coming up for sale on the illicit market. One of the major ways in which illicit objects are now being traded is through eBay. The Portable Antiquities Scheme has done good work in monitoring what is happening on eBay. However, while the scheme and the Treasure Act have been incredibly successful in bringing forward treasure items to be valued and therefore saved for the nation—some of these items are quite exquisite—there is a growing market in illicit British finds being sold. I therefore hope that the Government will not pass off their responsibilities to other departments, such as the British Museum, and pass up their responsibility for paying for them.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I, too, welcome these provisions, and the success of the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme as a whole. These revisions, savings and proposed rationalisations are clearly entirely appropriate. Much of the scientific work is done at the British Museum.
	However, the Minister was a little modest in his presentation of the scheme. One reason for the formal transfer of many of these responsibilities to the British Museum is the formidable success of the Treasure Act, as reinforced by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. I do not think the late, lamented Lord Perth, when he was so vigorously pressing for the new Treasure Act, passed in 1996, could quite have envisaged the success of the scheme. In that year, about 25 treasure trove finds went through the appropriate procedure. In the most recent year for which we have figures, 2005, it was something like 596: an increase by a factor of 20. It has been an enormous success. As I shall say in a moment, and as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has indicated, the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the finds liaison officers have played an important part in that process.
	The very success of the treasure trove scheme means that many more pieces are being offered to the nation's museums, including the British Museum, and which it is desirable to acquire. Fortunately, it has been possible to provide the funding, in large measure through the Heritage Lottery Fund as well as the Victoria and Albert Museum scheme. I declare a benign interest as a trustee of The Art Fund which has also played a role. It is suggested that the Heritage Lottery Fund is likely to play a decreasing role in future. I wonder whether it is not time for the Government to set aside a modest sum—£1 million a year or so—for treasure acquisition. Otherwise, there will be a considerable problem.
	Wonderful things have been acquired in recent years. One of the most remarkable was the Ringlemere cup: a wonderful gold cup from the beginning of the early Bronze Age, around 2000 BC, which compares with the Rillaton cup. I remind the House that the treasure scheme has been updated from earlier days. I think I am right in saying that on the death of King George V, the Rillaton cup was found on his desk, containing his cufflinks. In those days the treasure system clearly worked in a less formal manner than today. I am sure we welcome that, and the fact that it is now safely in the British Museum.
	This is linked to the great success of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The finds liaison officers, as the House will know, not only encourage the effective operation of the Treasure Act, but also the voluntary reporting of antiquities, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has reminded us, which are not treasure—they are not gold, silver or whatever—but which are worth recording. In 2005, 57,000 antiquities were so recorded. The scheme is an enormous success on which the Government are warmly to be congratulated. It also has an outreach dimension: there are millions of hits on the website associated with the scheme, and the very efficient team based at the British Museum goes to schools and gives lectures. The nation's treasure is not only being put in the right place—in museums, in many cases—but is being of educational value.
	If I may be even more affable about the Government, it has been a good decade for antiquities. It started in 1996, when there was still a Conservative Government, as the Minister will recall, but since then a number of significant steps have safeguarded antiquities in this country. The ratification of the 1970 UNESCO convention by this Government, is one of them, and the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003—in which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, had a significant hand—was a great step forward. However, the Act does not work retrospectively and, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I am still uneasy about some of the things that go on.
	For instance, the Sevso treasure was recently exhibited in a London saleroom. It is not believed to have been found in this country—although I do not think the Minister could give me an assurance that it was not—and it was probably exported from its country of origin, almost certainly illegally, after 1970 and must therefore be of uncertain ownership. I find it difficult to see how the Government could grant it an export licence. However, we cannot blame the Government for the failure of the legislation at that point because of the convention that legislation does not act retrospectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said in today's Guardian, it is a knotty problem that requires resolution, but that will not be easy. However, the larger picture has been entirely positive.
	I shall conclude on the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, by pointing out that the success of the working of the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme depends on the team of 47 or so people based at the British Museum who work in liaison with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Comprehensive Spending Review is causing anxiety among those of us who admire the working of the scheme. I am told that it will require about £1.5 million to operate at the present level in 2008-09 and about £1.6 million in 2010. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I ask the Minister to consider ring-fencing those sums so that the scheme can go forward.
	It is sometimes said that the present Government are looking for a legacy. There may be some areas where the legacy does not command my entire admiration, but in this area, for which the Minister is responsible, it is a fine legacy, and my advice to the Government is to safeguard it by ring-fencing it. I am therefore happy to support the code.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for his comments about the advances we have made in allocating finds to their proper place, which, in many cases, is for the good of the nationin museums. I could expand his praise of recent developments in terms of museum attendance, the figures for which are so much higher than they were in the recent past. That reflects the fact that we now address ourselves to a nation that is much more aware of this legacy and of the enormous rewards than can be derived from our museums and that takes a keen interest in this subject. That is why the Government are committed to our strategy.
	Both noble Lords stretched the discussion on the code. I sought to emphasise not only that the code of practice is based on rationality, but also that there are administrative gains by effecting reductions in unnecessary expenditure, thereby releasing funds for necessary expenditure. I hope the noble Lords recognise that we are concerned about these matters, but they ranged much more widely than that.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we have a genuine problem with those who do not declare their finds. Those involved in detection give enormous help in rescuing treasure. They play their part in archaeological digs and engage in their own forays. Many honest citizens and true ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, indicated, finds become available, and proper rewards go to those who have discovered them and to those on whose land they have been found.
	However, there is the hidden market and the substantial activity—although we are not able to quantify it with any accuracy—of those who do not follow the procedures that we expect them to with regard to such finds. That is a genuine problem. The British Museum, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and eBay have recently produced a partnership agreement so that eBay can be alerted to items on its site that may be unreported treasure finds. Of course not everything will be sold through eBay, but there is no doubt that this action will potentially close down the illicit activity of people advertising their finds when they have no right to be selling them. We are concerned to block that.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, suggests about greater activity by my department in pursuit of the illegal. That is not the direct responsibility of the DCMS. The Home Office is concerned with illegal acts. It is very much in the nation's interest that we reduce such illegal activity to the absolute minimum, but the noble Lord will recognise that prosecuting authorities will act only on clear evidence that such activity has occurred. That is not easy to establish, as I am sure he will recognise.
	Both noble Lords indicated that departmental cuts might affect the efficiency with which the work is carried out. All departments are under the rubric of finding efficiency gains. The DCMS and its supporting agencies are in the same position as others. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—quite rightly, given his enormous interest in and massive contribution to this work over the years—says that this item of government expenditure and activity should be ring-fenced. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I believe that if I succumbed to such a concept—I am mindful that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is sitting opposite me and knows exactly where the economic pennies fall—there would be a wide range of representations in this House for ring-fencing of a similar kind. So I cannot promise that this evening, but I can undertake to ensure that efficiency gains will increase the efficiency of organisations and not damage process. I am entirely at one with both noble Lords that this work is of great benefit to the nation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—he will not mind if I say it on this occasion—predictably raised the issue of the Sevso treasure. I did not think that I could stand at the Dispatch Box this evening and introduce an instrument with the word "treasure" in it without the Sevso treasure being mentioned. I assure the House that the Government have not been asked to grant an export licence. If they are, they will consider whether they have any discretion in the matter. Although we cannot guarantee where the Sevso treasure was found or who owns it, there are sufficient vigorous claims around for the Government to be unlikely to need to decide whether there should be an export order. I cannot go any further than that from the Dispatch Box—and the noble Lord will recognise why I cannot—but we obviously have a keen interest in the outcome if the Sevso treasure actually comes to market. There are great uncertainties about all aspects of the Sevso treasure. The nation is right—and I am glad that the noble Lord raised the matter this evening—to be to be alert to the problems attendant on that.
	I want to say how much I appreciate the constructive way in which both noble Lords discussed the issues this evening. Both of them have contributed an enormous amount to this work over the years. If I introduced the Motion modestly, it is because, as I am all too well aware, I personally have a great deal to be modest about, in comparison with the two noble Lords who have spoken on the issue. What is more, a guiding light of the department is to do as much good by stealth as we are able. The code of practice, which is in the public domain without stealth, will, I hope, do good. Accordingly, I commend it.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, drew the House's attention to an important point relating to the definition of school hours in Clause 100 and its implications for our policy on the whereabouts of excluded pupils. Our intention is for pupils not to be present in a public place during school hours on the first five days of exclusion without reasonable justification. In "school hours", we include the lunch hour and other breaks that a school may permit during the day. Amendments Nos. 119 to 122, 128 and 131 in the name of the noble Baroness provide a more sufficient and robust definition of "school hours" than is in the Bill. They improve the Bill and we are very glad to accept them.
	Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 129, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are concerned with the provisions the Bill makes for excluded pupils. We have given a great deal of further attention to that issue and the noble Baroness was good enough to quote some of the correspondence. However, I have a reply outstanding to the latest letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; I will reply, but I hope I can give some indication of where we will be going on that and I hope that the noble Baroness will find that at least a move in the right direction.
	Amendment No. 126 would mean that local authorities would have to make provision from day one of the exclusion, in the case of temporary exclusions, rather than, as proposed in the Bill, from day six. Under existing arrangements, schools and local authorities can and do make provision earlier than the sixth day either at a pupil referral unit or through another form of alternative provision. The issue here is whether we should require local authorities to make alternative provision earlier than the sixth day. We considered this issue long and hard, and I appreciate the arguments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, but our conclusion was that to make a move in this direction was certainly unaffordable at the moment and probably unworkable. Let me explain why.
	First, an appropriate place will not always be available immediately in a pupil referral unit unless there is a very significant expansion of supply. To have that significant expansion of supply and other provision that would be suitable for pupils would, in our view, be prohibitively expensive. Our estimate was that it would cost some £53 million a year, compared with the cost of making such provision available from day six, which is around £16 million a year. We accept that some local authorities are in a position to make this provision now because of the facilities they have available.
	However, it is not simply a case of the availability of places in pupil referral units. It is important to note that under the law, quite rightly, provision for excluded pupils has to be suitable to the child's age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs that they may have. Although a pupil referral unit placement may be suitable for excluded pupils in the first few days of exclusion, it may not be. Therefore, that may not be the answer even if we were able to resource PRU provision. It may not be the appropriate provision for a particular excluded child in a particular circumstance.
	The conclusion we have reached is that the position in the Bill is right, but of course we expect local authorities to be mindful of their responsibilities. A conscientious local authority would be very mindful indeed of the needs of parents who find it difficult or well nigh impossible to make personal arrangements for the supervision of their children during a short-term exclusion.
	Amendments Nos. 127 and 129 address the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, about the duties introduced under Clause 100. Reflecting on the concerns expressed in Committee and following the meeting of my officials with several parents' organisations to which the noble Baroness referred, we recognise that parents need a clearer explanation of their duty under Clause 100.
	I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, undertaking to ensure that the model letter my department offers head teachers to send to parents when a child is excluded is revised to set out clearly the precise nature of their duty under Clause 100, the days on which that duty will apply, the consequences of failing in that duty and the availability of the defence of reasonable justification. Picking up on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her latest letter to me, the model letter will also include the telephone number of local authorities' education welfare services or equivalent. I undertake to speak to the Local Government Association about commitments it may be able to give about, for example, helpline arrangements with extended hours to ensure that this is as accessible as possible for parents, including those who are at work during the day.
	I undertake to report back—I fear that I shall be unable to do so in the coming week—to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, on the results on those discussions, and to circulate details to other noble Lords.
	However, after careful consideration, we are not persuaded that we should go further and seek to define "reasonable justification" in the way in which I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would wish. There are two reasons. First, to include in the notice which the parent receives an indication of what is and what is not a reasonable justification may simply present parents with a list of ready-made excuses. Secondly, having considered what such a list might look like, we do not believe that it is viable to compile it. It would be well nigh impossible to predict the range of factual circumstances in which the defence would be available. The test of what is reasonable will depend on the merits of the individual case. What is reasonable in some circumstances will not necessarily be reasonable in all circumstances. Public libraries were raised in our earlier discussion. Let us take that as an example—I have given some thought to it. Going to a public library might be a reasonable justification for a pupil who needed to undertake specific study, particularly in the run-up to examinations, but it might not be reasonable if the reason for going was to play computer games and to lark around. That is just one example of how to seek to specify "reasonable justification" in guidance or a letter to parents would be well nigh impossible. Those who will bring forward cases under this clause will be reasonable people working for public authorities and they will make reasonable judgments.
	I reiterate that we accept that parents, particularly those who may be disadvantaged, need clear guidance. I have gone some way towards clarifying that advice. I am happy to commit the Government to consulting interest groups on the wording of our guidance, but we cannot go as far as to agree to the notice from head teachers including a list of acceptable justifications.
	I further stress that the duty placed on parents under Clause 100 is quite specific: they must ensure that their child is not present in a public place during school hours during the first five days of exclusion. There is no duty on the parent to supervise their child or to be with their child during that time. Where a child may need supervision, the clause does not require the parent to exercise that supervision; a friend or relative could do it. A parent, therefore, is at liberty to arrange for the supervision of the child in whatever way they choose and this need not be in person; hence, they have no need to take time off work, to take their child to work with them, or to accompany their child to a pupil referral unit. However, as I have said, the greater availability of advice from the education welfare service—which I hope we can provide—should mean that those parents who have no capacity to make arrangements will be given proper support.
	I know that what I have said falls short of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was seeking, but I hope that I have been able to meet at least some of her concerns. I hope that she and the House will welcome what I have said as achieving the objectives that we all share. Having read the Steer report, I accept what the noble Baroness said. It is the professionals' remark that the penalty of short-term exclusion often seemed to be no penalty at all which led us into this territory in the first place.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we move to the issue of physical restraint of pupils. In our debate on 25 July, the Minister said that school staff already had a statutory power to use reasonable force. He pointed out:
	"We are not aware that this essential legislation has caused problems over the past eight years in which it has been in effect. Therefore, we believe that it would be disproportionate and impractical to require every school to give every member of staff who has any responsibility for supervising pupils specialised training in physical intervention".—[Official Report, 25/7/06;col. 1688-9.]
	What about the Minister's inclusion agenda? The Government say that every teacher is a teacher of children with special needs, and it is those children who are disproportionately affected by this problem and whose needs must be seriously taken into account, if there is to be any kind of physical intervention without damage. The Advisory Centre for Education, the National Autistic Society and the charity TreeHouse all have significant concerns about the broad powers given to the schools' workforce to use force and the likely disproportionate impact on disabled children and those with special educational needs such as autism, whose behaviour can often be extreme and very difficult to deal with, unless all those members of staff have training in intervention in an appropriate way and in de-escalation strategies.
	The Steer report, about which we have heard much, deliberately set aside consideration of children with special educational needs, yet they make up 90 per cent of those at primary school and 60 per cent of those at secondary school who are excluded from school and with whom those situations might arise. In debates in another place the Schools Minister, Jim Knight, was most helpful in clarifying that when,
	"deciding whether to use force and what sort of force to use, school staff will have to take account of all the relevant circumstances. Those will certainly include a pupil's special educational needs or disability".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 10/05/06; col. 835.]
	The Minister is entirely correct in saying that there is non-statutory guidance on the use of force. Schools already have guidance on the use of restrictive physical interventions for staff working with children and adults who display extreme behaviour in association with a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder, and separate guidance on the use of restrictive physical intervention for pupils with severe behavioural difficulties. The problem is that those two sets of guidance are neither statutory nor well known in mainstream schools. As anybody with any knowledge of working with children with autism will know, it is imperative that mainstream schools also receive such guidance, especially on avoidance and de-escalation of problems.
	Special schools have developed great expertise over the past few years in dealing with such issues, and we would hope that their expertise can be spread throughout the mainstream school community through dissemination of best practice. We warmly welcome the Minister's pledge to update the guidance, but could he clarify how it will be distributed to schools, whether it will be made statutory and how the DfES will ensure that all schools will act in accordance with it? For example, will Ofsted monitor its use? We believe that unless this clause requires statutory guidance, uneven professional practice will result, with consequent risks to children and the staff involved. The Minister said at Second Reading that,
	"we need to further nurture the training and development of teachers and head teachers".—[Official Report, 21/6/06; col. 863.]
	That is exactly what our amendment seeks to do. The need for this will become increasingly pressing as more children with complex behavioural and communication difficulties, such as autism, are included in mainstream schools. They will gain many advantages from that, but only if they are properly resourced and the staff are properly trained to meet their particular needs, not least in a situation where physical restraint might be required.
	Jim Knight suggested in Committee in another place that he did not see SEN behaviour and physical handling as a mainstream issue and maintained that it was only so in,
	"some schools and units ... where situations requiring physical intervention may be more frequent and more serious".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 10/5/06; col. 860.]
	But, as I said, his comments seem at odds with the Government's excellent 10-year strategy for children with special needs, Removing barriers to achievement, which states:
	"All teachers should expect to teach children with special needs".
	If all teachers need to teach children with special needs, then all teachers need the appropriate training. If they have the power to use physical restraint where appropriate, they need to know how to use it properly and in a way that does not endanger the child, themselves or any other child. A thorough consultation process leading to statutory guidance aimed at all school staff would be the most appropriate step. As any teacher might at any time have children with special needs in their class, all teachers should receive the appropriate training. No teacher takes physical restraint of a child lightly. It is a very difficult and sensitive area and teachers are very reluctant to do it because of the danger of misinterpretation of their behaviour. I am sure that most teachers will apply it only when it is absolutely necessary to secure the safety of the child and other children in the class. However, we have a duty to ensure that teachers are properly prepared for that responsibility by ensuring that they are all properly trained. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: In speaking to Amendment No. 124A, I ask myself, as I have done again and again during our debates: who on earth would be a teacher? We return to this much-debated and, to my mind, hugely important amendment. It will enable teachers to retain their anonymity where they have been accused of committing a criminal offence by a pupil in class. Out of 2,016 cases investigated between 1995 and 2002, only 4 per cent of all allegations against teachers have resulted in a conviction.
	We live in a low-risk culture, where we believe that risks are so great that they should not be taken. That is right; we should never risk our children's welfare. But neither should we therefore risk the trust of our teachers. Male teachers are dissuaded from the profession, which is hardly surprising as 70 per cent of all allegations are made against male teachers.
	Following the last stage of the Bill, my colleagues and I met the Minister from another place to discuss the implications of the amendment. I am very grateful to the Minister, Jim Knight, for that opportunity. Having considered the representations of the Minister, Members on other Benches and the NSPCC, we have revised our amendment so that it will strike the most effective mechanism for protecting teachers from allegations that ruin careers and lives, which leaves enough flexibility to carry out effective police investigations.
	We have considered the amendment extremely carefully over the past few months. There are some crucial differences. The new version of the amendment provides for the order to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny. It applies only to charges for criminal offences, not internal disciplinary matters. The amendment includes a power to include exemptions where necessary—that is, where the accused is in danger of committing further offences or fleeing after having done so and where the police need to identify the accused during their investigations, for example when seeking witnesses.
	I believe that we have addressed the main concerns of the NSPCC. The Secretary of State's powers under the amendment are completely different from the arrangements that surrounded List 99. The Secretary of State's involvement in regulations made under the amendment extends to the guidance that the Minister has already introduced. The Secretary of State could not make a judgment on individual cases, as with List 99; rather, he or she would have a power to introduce a general framework for anonymity. Specific exemption could be brought by those with expertise or local knowledge, such as police or social workers.
	We recognise the need to leave schools and police forces the absolute independence to deal with allegations as they, in their professional expertise, see fit; but anonymity will protect the future of thousands who face unfair allegations and the crippling effect of ever-increasing trial by media.
	The NSPCC has expressed concerns that the amendment would create a two-tier system under which teachers and school staff were afforded anonymity until they were charged, but not those who work with children in other areas. My response is: just because the amendment does not afford anonymity to all who work with children does not mean that we should do nothing.
	We would welcome measures that protected all people who work with children from the tragic effects of false allegations and the destruction of reputation, but I must make one point absolutely clear. Teachers work with children in classrooms. Their relationship with children is entirely different from that of a carer or someone in another position outside school. There are points to be scored from teachers in school. I am sure that noble Lords will remember that from their own school days.
	We are not considering the entire social service but teachers and workers in schools. We have worked incredibly hard to provide what we believe will protect teachers and children from the intrusive effects of publicity in the uncertain stages of a criminal allegation, and will lessen the risk to teachers of false allegations by taking away the incentive to make them.
	We hope that these measures will treat serious and tragic situations with the seriousness and privacy that they deserve where those allegations are founded. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the principle behind the amendment and I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said about the right of teachers not to be vilified unjustifiably. I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, said on that.
	These sorts of allegations, if unjustified, can ruin a teacher's life and his or her career—and the lives of his or her family. There is absolutely no justification for spreading unsupported allegations across the media. I should like the media to be somewhat more responsible in the way that they act in those circumstances. However, with a free press, this is a very difficult matter. I recall our discussions in this House in 2003 on the Sexual Offences Bill. We had a very thorough canter round the course on this issue with a different team. At the time, I was in the home affairs team but I recall it very well. We concluded that we could not legislate to fetter the rights of the free press; ultimately, it had to be left to them to do it themselves in the public interest. I think that some of them do it very well and that some of them do not.
	Having said that, I think that there are some problems with the amendment, although I give enormous credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She has tried to bend over backwards to satisfy the concerns of all and sundry on this matter. But there are still some problems. I gather that the amendment would affect academies. But of course the Secretary of State has an interest in academies and it is of the Secretary of State that one would ask permission for an exemption. That would be difficult because the Secretary of State would then have an interest in the case.
	We on these Benches believe that, if an exemption is to be given, it should be given by the court on the application of the police. We do not believe that it should be given by a Minister on the advice of civil servants. I am sure that noble Lords will be able to recall the difficulties that we had only a few months ago when there was a lot of publicity about certain people working in schools. Ministers had made decisions about that based on the advice of civil servants—all in good faith, I am sure. But, as a result, we now have the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, in which both Houses of Parliament have decided that it is more appropriate for such decisions to be made by an independent board of experts. I think that that should also happen in these cases. I do not think that it should go to the Secretary of State.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that accepting her amendment would be better than doing nothing. But the fact is that the Government have not done nothing. I, too, am grateful to the Minister, Jim Knight, for inviting me to the meeting at which we talked about what the Government are doing. A number of new practices now in place are designed to ensure that cases are thoroughly investigated as quickly as possible with appropriate inquiries of other adults about whether there is any corroboration of the child's story. Rightly, one concern of the NSPCC is that only a very small proportion of all allegations is proved simply on the basis of children's evidence. There is a better chance of genuine complaints being proved where there is some corroboration from adults. Therefore, it is important that appropriate and sensitive inquiries can be made.
	I found it significant that in the run-up to today's debate we had objections from what one might consider to be both sides of the spectrum. The NSPCC came from the point of view of the protection of children and did not want to fetter any appropriate inquiries that might lead to the proving of genuine allegations. On the other hand, the NUT was very concerned about what is meant by anonymity and how far it goes. Are we talking about asking other members of staff at the school whether they can corroborate the child's story? Are we going to the child's parents or to a medical practitioner and right through the spectrum to the press? Of course, no one wants that. When both sides of the spectrum find difficulties with an amendment, you have to ask yourself whether it is the right one.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that her proposals represent the most effective mechanisms. I believe that the most effective mechanisms are prevention and training for staff on what is appropriate behaviour with children. Staff need to know how they might inadvertently open themselves up to allegations; how they can protect themselves from that; how to create a culture of child protection within a school with everyone trained in what to look out for when a child has been abused; and, if a child is upset, how to notice what the problem is and to listen to the child effectively. I believe that those are the most effective mechanisms in preventing unwarranted allegations against teachers, which none of us wants to see. If allegations are made, we do not want to see teachers vilified any more widely than is appropriate for a proper investigation of the issue.
	I would like the new measures that the Government have put in place to speed up inquiries. I would also like a proper opportunity to evaluate whether those measures are working before we put in place a piece of legislation such as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is so conscientiously putting before us tonight. It is right that we should have time to see whether the new measures are working well and then return to all the experts and say, "Right, do you think that in any way any child's safety has been prejudiced by this set of measures? Do we need to go further?" If they believe that we need to go further I, for one, would be very anxious to do so. If, on the other hand, many teachers feel that they have been vilified more widely than is necessary for a very narrow investigation of the issues, we also need to look again at that.
	As we have some problems with this amendment and as we have some new measures in place for which we need time to see whether they work, we shall not be supporting the amendment, although I repeat that we absolutely support the principle of anonymity, as far as is compatible with ensuring child safety, because the interests of the child are absolutely paramount.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I completely appreciate the concerns which have led the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to table the amendment. I pay tribute to her for the consistent attention she has paid to this important issue during the passage of the Bill through the House.
	My reply was in fact largely given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I hope I do not need to repeat it all, but I feel it incumbent on me, given the gravity of the issue, to set out the Government's position properly.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Walmsley, met my honourable friend Jim Knight, along with Members of the House of Commons and representatives from the NSPCC and the NASUWT, in July. My honourable friend agreed to give the issue further consideration over the summer and has recently written to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to follow up the points raised at that meeting. It may be helpful, since that letter was not circulated to all noble Lords, if I reiterate the key points. I stress—as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has—that because we are not able to give a statutory right to anonymity, although we have given it a good deal of consideration, that does not mean to say that we have been satisfied with the status quo and have not made changes. We have made changes, which I will set out. We believe, however, that to give a statutory right of anonymity is a step too far, given all the considerations that need to apply.
	First, our new guidance on allegations was issued less than a year ago. Since then, we have included overarching guidance on handling allegations against all people who work with children, in Working Together to Safeguard Children. That was published in April, and applies from October this year. Taking up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, a key feature of that advice is that all allegations should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. One of the biggest concerns the teaching unions have rightly had on this is that too many cases were dragging on for an unnecessarily long time. Each continuation of the investigative process is more time when a teacher is, perhaps unfairly, in the spotlight and unable fully to clear their name—if, indeed, they are innocent of the allegations.
	The safeguarding children guidance makes emphatic the need for speed in dealing with allegations. At paragraph 6.21 on page 152 it says:
	"In evaluating the effectiveness of local procedures"—
	including procedures applying in schools—
	"local safeguarding children boards should have regard to the need to complete cases expeditiously. Data about allegations made against education staff show that it is reasonable to expect that 80 per cent of cases should be resolved within 1 month, 90 per cent within 3 months and all but the most exceptional cases should be completed within 12 months, although it is unlikely that cases that require a criminal prosecution or a complex police investigation can be completed in less than 3 months".
	That is clear in setting actual timeframes within which allegations should be investigated and decisions taken about whether charges are to be brought.
	Secondly, we now have in place the new network of allegations management advisers, who took up their posts in April. They work with the local safeguarding children boards to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for dealing with allegations of abuse against people who work with children. Part of the work of these new allegations management advisers will be to help organisations avoid allegations arising in the first place, through safe recruitment processes and advice on staff behaviour when working with children, precisely of the kind described by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. They will also help local safeguarding children boards and other organisations to develop and implement effective arrangements for collecting data on allegations, including data on how quickly the allegations are dealt with, so that we can monitor the effectiveness of local arrangements in meeting the guidance timeframes I have just set out. We have undertaken formally to review the impact of the guidance next year with the involvement of all stakeholders and will reconsider what further measures may be necessary in the light of that review.
	On the issue of a statutory right to anonymity, we remain of the view that legislation on this issue now would raise important principles about the freedom of the press and the public interest and that the crucial issue is to deal with cases quickly. We agree with the NSPCC that we should not do anything that would discourage children reporting concerns, and we believe that to introduce anonymity for teachers, but not for other professionals who have contact with children, would create an undesirable two-tier system.
	Although I cannot go the whole way with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I thank her for raising these issues again and giving us a chance to discuss them. I hope she will accept that the measures I have set out will go some way to dealing with the issue.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank noble Lords who have been kind enough to support the amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I appreciate the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about her concerns regarding this amendment.
	I feel from the closing sentences of the Minister's response that I am doing the right thing about my concerns. There is concern about the freedom of the press and the public interest, but one's career, family life, home life and whole future can be utterly destroyed within weeks, within days, of a false allegation, let alone three months. We must do something. We are haemorrhaging teachers; they are leaving the profession because of this situation. It has become almost cool for kids to accuse teachers of something as a way of getting back at them. I believe that we are on the right path in trying to introduce statutory protection for teachers. I appreciate that it is important to create a culture of protection in our schools, but we are already doing that. We should remember the numbers: there were 2,016 cases between 1995 and 2002, and only4 per cent of them led to conviction.
	I appreciate that the Government have undertaken a number of measures and that cases are being dealt with more expeditiously than in the past, but that does not go far enough. Indeed, we understand that unions have called for the protection to go further; they have asked that those accused are named only when they are found guilty. There are difficult questions in relation to what we mean by anonymity. Do we mean anonymity with regard to colleagues, the teaching profession, within the school or in the media? But the Minister answered that point when he said that we have to respect, or, in his words, "take account of" the freedom of the press and public interest.
	These Benches are concerned to ensure the safety of children and the ability discreetly to seek out witnesses who could support or deny allegations. But when we are talking about the freedom of the press and public interest, we should remember that the lives of people who give of themselves when they join the teaching profession can be destroyed with such ease. We need to go further.
	I shall not take this amendment further tonight. I want to think about the concerns raised about it, including the questions the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised about problems with academies and referral to the Secretary of State. Perhaps it is right that we should rethink yet again the wording of our amendment and consider whether the appeal should be to the courts or to some other independent body. I find it very hard to hold back on something that I think is crucial for such a brilliant profession. However, all I shall say tonight is that I shall reserve my option to return to this issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 98 [Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils]:
	[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
	Clause 100 [duty of parent in relation to excluded pupil]:
	[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, enables me to pay tribute to the work of Ofsted during the past 14 years. He was the distinguished first head of Ofsted and it has done exemplary work in the school system and beyond during that period. I know that it is late, but this is our only opportunity to discuss inspection or report.
	It may be of interest to the House to learn that recent research conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Ofsted to obtain parents' views of inspections in schools found that 92 per cent of parents said that they were in favour of school inspections, against only 4 per cent who were not; 82 per cent of parents said that they believed that inspections had helped their child's or children's schools to improve, with 90 per cent of that group considering the inspection or report to be helpful.
	It is very unusual in the educational world to have such near-unanimity on any aspect of policy. It is a tribute to the work of Ofsted during the past 14 years that it has managed to achieve that status. I know that the reports by Ofsted in general and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector in particular—especially his annual reports, which have become a sort of state-of-the-nation report on the quality of the school system—are immensely valued by parents and policy makers.
	On Amendment No. 132, I completely agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. We believe that creating an adult learning inspector in the Bill is unnecessary. As I made clear in Committee, there is no question of any part of the adult skills remit being lost in the new framework. We have put in place safeguards, such as a new board with statutory duties to have regard to the views of users such as employers, who are defined as one such user. I recognise that some groups, particularly those that were not part of Ofsted as it was before the Bill, were initially suspicious of the move to Ofsted. However, we believe that these concerns have been diminished as the proposals have become better developed.
	The strategy board overseeing the creation of the new Ofsted demonstrated the priority that it gives to this area of Ofsted's functions. Its first meeting with external stakeholders was with the CBI, the TUC and a sector skills council, and I understand that this dialogue demonstrated the benefits that could be brought by the cross-fertilisation of the qualities of the two inspectorates.
	The amendment would require a senior member of Ofsted's staff to have responsibility for adult learning. It may reassure the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and the noble Baroness who spoke to hers to know that Christine Gilbert, the new HMCI, has indicated there will be a director of skills in the new Ofsted, who will report directly to the chief inspector at exactly the same level as the directors for education and children's services, which are also planned.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, stated in Committee:
	"Surely the existence of a head of inspection for schools but no position for adult learning will create a division of attention in the inspectorate that all but ignores adult learning".—[Official Report, 25/7/06; col. 1710.]
	I should clarify that the Bill does not propose a head of inspection of schools, so a director of adult learning to mirror this is, by definition, unnecessary. Furthermore, defining in legislation separate heads of inspection runs the risk of embedding in statute a federal system in Ofsted that is contrary to the underlying principle of integration and that would tie Ofsted's hands in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, it should be Her Majesty's Chief Inspector who takes operational decisions on the organisational structure, rather than it being dictated through legislation.
	The amendment might also undo the core principle of Ofsted, which has been a key part of its success over the years, that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector is solely and personally responsible for inspection judgments and does not have to arbitrate those judgments, either through a board or through management dialogue in Ofsted. We would risk damaging the credibility, simplicity and success of Ofsted if we were to weaken the accountability system of the office of the chief inspector.
	On Amendments Nos. 133 and 134, as I said in Committee, since 2005 Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection have arrived at a local authority's performance rating for its children's services functions by discussing and agreeing one rating to cover both education and children's social care. Clause 134 provides for a single performance rating, to be awarded by the chief inspector following the transfer of functions. The Government believe that tracking year-on-year progress is a key element in driving up performance. This is especially true when local authorities and their partners are integrating services to deliver the Every Child Matters agenda. In assessing the performance of local authorities, inspectors will assess how they interact with their partners and will focus on how they contribute to the well-being of children.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about self-assessment on behalf of the Local Government Association. I emphasise that self-assessment is at the heart of the annual performance assessment. The local authority produces its self-assessment, and Ofsted evaluates this against other evidence. That process produces the performance rating, so we accept the importance of self-assessment and do not believe that it is diminished by these arrangements.
	Government Amendments Nos. 134A to 134E, 145A and 145B are technical government amendments. They are consequential on recent amendments to the Police and Justice Bill, which were announced by the Government and approved by the House last week. The amendments that I have tabled will ensure that the reciprocal arrangements for co-operation between all inspectorates apply between the new Ofsted and each of the criminal justice inspectorates.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 135, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. Amendment No. 135 makes a technical correction to the drafting of subsection (4) of the new Section 11A to the Education Act 2005 which is to be inserted by virtue of Clause 155. By virtue of subsection (4), regulations will enable the chief inspector to disapply a condition specified in regulations which requires parents to have exhausted other complaints mechanisms before their complaint may be investigated. It is right that in normal circumstances, under this clause, parents should seek to resolve their concerns locally before approaching Ofsted. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that the chief inspector has the ability to act immediately on receipt of a complaint where the matter raised justifies urgent investigation—for example, where the chief inspector has serious concerns about pupil well-being.
	Government Amendment No. 137 inserts new Clauses 167A to167D into Part 10 of the Education Act 2002 to allow the appropriate authority for independent schools to make a direction which would prohibit or place restrictions on a person participating in the management of independent schools on one or more prescribed grounds to be set out in regulations. The new provisions also provide for a right of appeal against such a direction. The current arrangements are contained in Section 142 of the Education Act 2002, which will be repealed once the vetting and barring scheme is introduced by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. A full consultation will be undertaken before regulations are made. The consultation will propose prescribing grounds, such as criminal convictions for fraud, theft or money laundering and glorification of terrorism and membership of a proscribed organisation.
	In addition, Amendment No. 138 deals with the removal of independent schools from the register of such schools where unsuitable persons are employed. Amendment No. 139 puts in place a power to make transitional provisions to cover those persons currently subject to a Section 142 direction. Parents and the general public will expect the Secretary of State to protect children in independent schools and the public by continuing to have arrangements which prevent unsuitable people from running independent schools. These amendments, together with existing powers to prescribe the standards relevant to the suitability of proprietors and staff in independent schools, seek to continue the current arrangements for preventing people who are unsuitable from taking part in the management of independent schools.
	Government Amendment No. 145 meets a commitment that I made to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in Committee. I stated then that we accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that orders under Clause 157 that amend primary legislation should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This amendment provides that orders made by the Secretary of State that amend any public general Act will be subject to affirmative resolution.
	Finally, Amendment No. 143 is a minor technical amendment to correct the cross-reference to the framework power at Clause 168 within Clause 169, which places restrictions on the framework power conferred by Clause 168. I beg to move.